MASTER 
NEGA  TIVE 

NO.  92-81125-15 


MICROFILMED  1993 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Titie  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  malcing  of  photocopies  or 
other  reproductions  of  copyrighted  material. 

Under  certain  conditions  specified  in  the  law,  libraries  and 
archives  are  authorized  to  furnish  a  photocopy  or  other 
reproduction.  One  of  these  specified  conditions  is  that  the 
photocopy  or  other  reproduction  is  not  to  be  "used  for  any 
purpose  other  than  private  study,  scholarship,  or 
research."  If  a  user  makes  a  request  for,  or  later  uses,  a 
photocopy  or  reproduction  for  purposes  in  excess  of  "fair 
use,"  that  user  may  be  liable  for  copyright  infringement. 


This  institution  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to  accept  a 
copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


A  UTHOR : 


HOBART,  JOHN  HENRY 


TITLE: 


LETTER  TO  THE  VESTRY 
OF  TRINITY  CHURCH 

PLACE: 

NEW  YORK 

DA  TE : 

1811 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  # 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARGET 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


37.78 


V,'f.t'f  fii.U    "■ggV«'f!*'^jfW>"^»*^ 


1^ 


%mm  I 


J712  ^Hobart,  John  Henry   bp  Vl775-1830j'^-  ^ 

>.    ^    Letter  to  the  vestry  of  Trinity  church  in 

answer  to  a  pamphlet  entitled  "A  solemn  appeal  to  the 

church**  by  the  Rev.Cave  Jones;  jLo  which  is  added  an  ai>- 

•pendix  by  the  Rev*  T^Y^How 

I  N  Y  ISlij     0   146  +  clj  +  24  p 

Title-page  wan/ 


A  I 


I 


f 


-^ 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 

FILM     SIZE: 2J/tr^ _^^_  REDUCTION     RATIO:       //y 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA  (^  IB     IIB  "' 

DATE     FILMED::        ?-/-?> INITIALS 


_MC: 

HLMED  BY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WOODBRIDGE.  CT  ' 


c 


Association  for  information  and  Image  Management 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

12        3        4 


11 


mi 


I     I 


I  I  I  i  I 


5        6         7        8 

iiilimhiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiilii 


Inches 


I 


2  3 


9 

.1. 


10 

iiiiliii 


11        12       13       14       15    mm 


TTT 


HlMnlimlmm^^ 


[}\ 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


1^  III  2.8 

|5.0      '"^ 

2.5 

1^     ||3.2 

2.2 

!f    1^ 

^  m 

2.0 

ift 

t&     u 

tUmu. 

1.8 

1.4 

1.6 

1^ 


MflNUFflCTURED   TO   fillM   STRNDflRDS 
BY  PPPLIED   IMflGEp    INC. 


# 


<h' 


t>^-^' 


A    u 


9    r 


..^  i 


~w.  < 


i-5 


<:-: 


j:^ 


-  i» 


-<-'aj■■^, 


Vv 


>^^€^^ 


":>. 


H^ 


Vk^V 


> .» 


?^^ 


.«fe. 


^  il..'? 


r>2»»V" 


:;J^"%' 


..-^ 


^^y 


/.> 


I  n 


'^  >  . 


:^  /■ 'lW 


'*^*^. 


3  31.1Q 


J1I2. 


in  the  ®{t»  **f  gl«n»  Uork 


gxlrrarg 


aiVEN   BY 


X^T-.  GarodEield 


■• 


V 


'  I  ^ 


To  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church, 

New-York. 


Letter  to  the  vestry  of  Tn.-»,4+   . 
by  Bishop  Hobart.  in  anXr  t!     ^   "^'^ 
entitled  "A  soT^L  T  °  ^   P^P^et. 

DendiT  Vi'o^  +k  r^       wnich  is  added  an  ao- 
penaix  by  the  Rev.T.Y.How  ^ 


4 


GENTLEMEN, 

In  the  opinion  of  many  judicions 
friends  with  whom  I  most  heartily  concurred,  any  public 
notice  of  the  «  Appeal"  of  my  colleague,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jones, 
on  the  subject  of  my  character  in  general,  and  my  conduct 
to  him  and  others,  has  hitherto  appeared  highly  inexpedient. 
The  tribunal  to  which  that  gentleman  has  cited  me  having 
no  specific  cognizance  of  the  matters  brought  before  it,  there 
seemed  a  propriety  in  my  declining  to  stand  at  its  bar.  The 
ecclesiastical  authority  having  provided  for  the  investigation 
and  decision  of  all  complaints  against  ecclesiastical  persons, 
I  have  felt  unwilling,  even  in  self-defence,  to  pursue  the 
course  of  conduct  which,  in  my  colleague,  has  been  consi- 
dered as  a  violation  of  that  order  and  discipline  so  essential  to 
the  prosperity  of  the  Church ;  and  which  all  its  members, 
and  tiie  Clejrgy  in  particular,  are  therefore  bound  to  respect 
and  to  support  The  introduction  of  the  matters  contained 
in  that  gentleman's  ♦<  Appeal"  to  public  notice,  has  also 
been  deemed  so  subversive  of  the  harmony  of  society;  so 
repugnant  to  public  decorum  and  private  feeling;  and  so 
injurious  to  the  reputation  of  the  Clergy,  the  cause  of  re- 
ligion, and  the  interests  of  the  Church;  that  it  was  judged 
highly  inexpedient  to  prolong  a  discussion  productive  of  such 

evils.  ,..  1  X 

The  hope  too  was  cherished,  that  the  character  which  I 
had  established  would  be  my  security  against  meriting  the 
imputation  of  the  unwort%  dispositions,  conduct,  and  de- 
signs attributed  to  me  in  Mr.  Jones's  performance ;  diat  the 
community,  duly  appreciating  the  motives  of  delicacy  and 
jlf  regard  to  the  peace  and  honour  of  the  Chureh,  which 
oceasioned  my  silence,  would  not  consider  it  as  an  acknow- 
ledgment of  the  truth  of  the  charges  urged  against  me ;  and 
that  no  individuals  would  think  it  consistent  with  justice  to 
lorm  an  opinion  from  an  ex  parte  statement,  or  be  induced, 
by  the  representations  of  a  person  who  was  the  historian  of 
his  own  wrongs,  to  relinquish,  in  any  degree,  their  confi- 
dence ^li  those  who  had  hiUierto  enjoyed  it 
It  has  been  also  represented  to  me;  that  the  Uonourable 

i 


'•^ 


f. 


»  4 


To  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Churchy 

New-York. 


hv  R-^r'°''  "°   ^-'^  ^""^^^  °f  ^^i'-^ity  church 

r,pnriiv  V,-,  +1   „        w'-J-c.i  i^  addea  an  ap- 
ponaix  b/  the  Rev.T.Y.liow 


GENTLEMEN, 

In  the  opinion  of  many  judicious 
friends  with  whom  I  most  heartily  concurred,  any  public 
notice  of  the  «  Appeal"  of  my  colleague,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jones, 
on  the  subject  of  my  character  in  general,  and  my  eonduct 
to  him  and  others,  has  hitherto  appeared  highly  inexpedient. 
The  tribunal  to  which  that  gendeman  has  cited  me  having 
no  specific  cognizance  of  the  matters  brought  before  it,  there 
seeiricd  a  propriety  in  my  decUning  to  stand  at  its  bar.    1  he 
ecclesiastical  authority  having  provided  for  the  investigation 
and  decision  of  all  complaints  against  ecclesiastical  persons, 
I  have  felt  unwilling,  even  in  self-defence,  to  pursue  the 
course  of  conduct  which,  in  my  colleague,  has  been  consi- 
dered as  a  violation  of  that  oi-der  and  discipbne  so  essential  to 
the  prosperity  of  the  Church ;  and  which  aU  its  membei-s, 
»nrt  t'le  Clergy  in  particular,  are  therefore  bound  to  respect 
and  to  support.    The  introduction  of  the  matters  contained 
in  that  gentleman's  «  Appeal"  to  public  notice,   nas  also 
been  deemed  so  subversive  of  the  harmony  of  society ;  so 
repugnant  to  public  decorum  and  private  feeling;  and  so 
injurious  to  the  reputation  of  the  Clergy,  the  cause  of  re- 
ligion, and  the  interests  of  tiie  Church ;  that  it  was  judged 
highly  inexpedient  to  prolong  a  discussion  productive  of  such 

The  hope  too  was  cherished,  that  the  character  which  I 
had  cstabUshed  would  be  my  security  against  nienUng  the 
imputation  of  the  unworthy  dispositions,  conduct,  and  de- 
signs attributed  to  me  in  Mr.  Jones's  performance;  that  .he. 
community,  duly  appreciating  the  motives  of  delicacy  and 
«f  regard  to  the  peace  and  honour  of  the  Chui-eh,  which 
occasioned  my  silence,  would  not  consider  it  as  an  acknow-- 
ledgmcnt  of  the  truth  of  the  charges  urged  against  me;  and 
that  no  individuals  would  tliink  it  consistent  with  justice  to 
iorm  an  opinion  from  an  «c  parte  statement,  or  be  induced, 
bv  the  representations  of  a  person  who  was  the  historian  ol 
his  own  wrongs,  to  relinquish,  in  any  degree,  tiieir  confi- 
dcnce  ;ii  thoscwho  had  hitherto  enjoyed  it. 

It  has  been  also  lepresented  to  me.  that  the  UonouraWe 

1 


f 
L 
( 


'{ 


-V 


■/A 


(l 


/t- 


li 


\" 


\  I 


V- 


I  I 


(     2     ) 

whIi'Ti  '"  '"''  ''!''"?'^te'''  and  the  marks  of  confidence 

'^^-s^^r^  d"«  Horn  the  heads  of  the  ChurHi    hnt  ft*^,^  i 
gentlemen  of  (he  „,ost  respectable  LnZg  in  tt  ™^m? 
«UJ,  >vere  (he  best  refutadon  of  the  eharys  eontaTned  ^: 

iniiit.>  were  I  (o  declare  that,  under  the  assaults  which  ml 

■«^  n  I     *"■    V  *  .  "''"SU'shed  lay  gentlemen  of  our  Church 
Da  lli<?T'  f"'  .«»"«<>«"««.  ean1,ot  be  suspected  of  that 
pailialUj  Tvhich  might,  however  erroneousl/,  be  imDuted 
to  my  brethren  in  the  ministry      Yet  ertif ifv^L    #•  ""P"**" 
sonal  considerations,  as  is  £ir  Sal^uTfe  r^'^'e 
ate  transactions,  I  can,  with  the  utmost  sineeritt   make 
the  declaration,  that  the  part  which  they  have  acted  is  stiM 
.nore  gratifying  to  me  when  viewed  as  a  S Tf  the  S 
terest  wJuch  they  feel  in  the  concerns  of  the  ChuiS,  tid  « 
Pjedge  that  in  times  of  difficulty  she  will  not  wanT  the^or 
d.»l  support  of  those  to  whom  Providence  has  giten  X 
talents  and  the  influence  eflfeetually  to  advance  S  ca^sf 
which  they  „,ay  deem  it  their  duty  to  defend.  ^      ""* 

weLhTwr^S'.'"'!rH"'-  *^^"*>^""'»'  h^^*  bad  the  g«,atest 
wej^nt  with  me  5  and,  in  consequence,  I  have  uniformly  rp 

«s  ed  the  importunities  of  man^  respectable  persons  to  sut 

mit  an  expos.  ,on  of  my  conduct  to  the  public  eye      I  eoS 

«ot  be  mduced  to  go  further  than  to  read  to  a  fewTndivJduds 

pnncii.ally  members  of  the  Vestry,  or  gentlemen  morhn 

mediately  engaged  in  the  concerns  of  the  Chui^rTverC 

brief  statement    drawn  up  immediately  on  tK^salof 

Mr.  Jones's  «  Appc-al,-/  in  reply  t<.  some  of  its  Sj'ar 

But  the  considcratfons  in  fevoup  of  a  more  complete  and 
publie  vinduatmn  of  my  conduct  have  been  gradually  as 
suming  more  importance  in  the  minds  of  my  friends^  ft 
seems  too  much  to  itHjuirc  implicit  confidence  from  those 
individuals  whose  esteem   for   me.    notwithstandiL  Mr 
Jones's  performance,  continues  unabated;  whenitihnmV 
power  to  present  to  then,  the  fullest  evidence  of  the  perf^l 
eon-cc  ncss  of  my  eonduct.   Perhaps  among  those  whomYh^t 
pamphlet  has  affected  in  any  degree  unfev^i^bly  to  me,  thl 
most  prevalent  impression  is,  not  that  violence,  intolei^nee 

wes  of  my  character  J  but  that  probably  in  my  treatment  of 
bim  and  others  there  have  been  faults  which,  though  n"t  very 

Misa  that  I  had  avoided.  It  is  natural  for  a  man  aUve  to  the 


(    O 

delicacy  of  cliaraeter,  to  wish  to  repel  every  injurious  impu- 
tation,  however  trivial,  which  he  is  conscious  he  does  not 
merit.  Much  more  then  does  it  appear  natural  and  proper 
that  those  persons,  however  few  in  number,  who,  by  the  repre- 
sentations of  Mr.  Jones  or  his  friends  have  been  led  decidedly 
to  condemn  me,  should  receive  from  me  ike  evidence  Avhicii 
will  prompt  them,  as  honest  men,  to  do  me  justice. 

These  are  the  considerations  which  would  authorize  a  pri- 
vate individual,  from  the  rights  of  character,  in  vindicating 
it  as  publicly  as  it  has  b?.en  impeached.  But,  Gentlemen, 
were  my  station  a  private  one,  tliis  personal  Controversy,  as 
far  as  I  am  concerned,  should  cease  for  ever.  I  have  felt 
it  one  of  my  most  painful  trials,  that  the  vows  of  duty 
which  bind  me  to  the  Church,  have  not  permitted  me  to 
descend  to  those  private  walks  of  life,  where,  enjoying  hap- 
piness in  the  bosom  of  my  family  and  friends,  I  could  sub- 
mit, if  not  with  indifference,  at  least  in  silence,  to  the  suspi- 
cions and  censures  of  the  world,  rather  than  agitate  a  per- 
sonal discussion,  revolting  to  the  delicate  mind,  and  inex- 
T»ressibly  painful  to  the  friends  of  virtue  and  religion. 

It  is  rarely  that  in  situations  of  difficulty,  we  have  the 
alternative  of  pursuing  a  course  which  would  certainly  lead 
to  a  favourable  result  in  preference  to  one  manifestly  and 
decidedly  wrong.  In  almost  all  cases  we  must  make  an 
election  of  evils.  And,  in  the  judgment  of  the  friends 
whom  I  have  uniformly  consulted,  and  to  whom  I  am  bound 
to  pay  the  greatest  deference,  to  be  silent  under  existing 
circumstances  would  be  productive  of  much  greater  evil 
than  to  proclaim  my  defence.  The  office  of  a  Minister  of 
the  Gospel,  which  I  hold  in  common  with  my  brethren,  ren- 
ders it  desirable  that  I  should  not  only  be  free  from  just  re- 
proach, but  from  the  suspicion  of  it.  And  were  I  to  sub- 
mit to  encounter  distrust  in  those  important  ministrations 
which,  on  the  most  extensive  scale,  it  will  be  hereafter  my 
tluty  to  perform,  when,  by  a  developement  of  facts,  I  might 
justly  claim  the  highest  confidence,  I  should  become  ac- 
cessary to  a  diminution  of  my  usefulness ;  and  should  involve 
the  interests  of  religion  and  the  Church  in  the  reproaches 
which  might  be  cast  upon  myself.  Unparalleled  assiduity 
is  used  by  Mr.  Jones  and  his  friends  to  give  weight  to  the 
charges  contained  in  his  "  Appeal."  Representations  are  per- 
sonaUy  made  by  him  to  almost  every  individual  of  the  con- 
gregations, calculated  to  excite  sympathy  for  himself  as  a 
persecuted  man,  and  indignation  against  me  as  his  impla- 
cable oppressor.  From  the  constitution  of  human  nature 
such  arts  cannot  wholly  fail  of  success.    From  the  nature 


'»j ' 


360772 


r^BS 


\ 


(       *       ) 

of  things,  a  cause  however  weak  in  itself,  thus  advocated, 
cannot  fail  to  gather  strength.     Apart  then  from  what  is 
due  to  m.y  own  character,  to  my  family,  and  to  mv  friends, 
it  seems  due  to  religion  and  the  Church,  that  I  should  be 
no  longer  silent  under  unmerited  reproaches.    In  the  opi- 
nion of  those  most  doubtful  as  to  the  propriety  of  any  ge- 
neral answer  to  Mr.  Jones's  "Appeal,"  those  parts  Avhich  re- 
spect the  behaviour  imputed  to  me  towards  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Beach  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Feltus,  require  notice.     But  to  ex- 
plain them  alone  would  be  construed  into  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  truth  of  the  general  charges.     The  replication 
therefore  which  circumstances  thus  force  upon  me,  must 
extend  to  every  matter  of  impeachment.     Still,  reluctant  to 
adopt  a  mode  of  defence  the  use  of  which  necessity  only 
can  justify,  and  desirous  to  avoid  the  sanction  of  an  appeal 
to  the  public  on  matters  which  ought  never  to  be  agitated 
liefore  it,  I  have  concluded  to  address  a  letter  to  you,  to 
%¥hom,  however  in  some  points  of  view  I  am  independent 
of  your  control,  I  am  still  in  some  degree  amenable,  as  an 
Assistant  Minister  of  Trinity  Church.     I  have  determined 
also  to  print  some  copies  with  a  view  to  their  circulation 
among  those  only  whose   connection  with  the  Episcopal 
Church  renders  them  interested  in  its  concerns.   Gentlemen, 
in  this  business,  as  in  many  other  matters  in  which  I  have 
l)een  recently  called  to  act,  my  private  feelings  would  urge 
to  a  vei^^  different  course  from  that  which  duty  to  the 
Church  appears  to  dictate.     I  repeat  it— were  mv  station  a 
private  one,  this  discussion,  so  humiliating  to  private  and  t« 
public  feeling,  w  ould  on  my  part  be  closed  for  ever. 

The  general  chaiges  adduced  against  mc  bv  Mr.  Jones 
are  the  following.  I  take  them  as  they  occur  in  his  «  Appeal." 
In  page  2  of  his  "  Appeal,"  he  introduces  the  names  of  the 
Kev.  Mr.  Harris,  Dr.  Moore,  and  Mr.  Feltus ;  in  the  en- 
sumg  paragraph,  he  ranks  himself  with  all  the  clergy  who 
have  hitherto  been  named ;  and  then  goes  on,  in  the  name  of 
others  and  himself,  to  make  the  following  very  serious  de- 
claration respecting  me:  "  We  do  believe,  (and  we  solemnlv 
appeal  to  the  heart-searching  God  for  the  sincerity  of  our 
conviction,)  that  his  advancement  will  be  promotive  of  a 
system  of  t>Tanny  and  intolerance,  utterly  incompatible  with 
the  state  of  things  in  this  country;  that  it  wUl  be  productive 
of  great  dissatisfaction  and  disunion  in  the  Church ;  and 
that  It  will  subject  the  clergy  to  a  state  of  servile  submission, 
which  would  be  highly  disgraceful,  and  incompatible  with 
the  sacredness  and  religious  responsibility  of  their  character. 


(    5    ) 

We  say  nothing  of  his  abilities.  These  we  are  ready  to 
allow  in  their  due  extent.  But  we  do  think  that  he  has  par- 
ticular traits  of  character,  that  he  has  qualities  of  mind 
and  of  heart,  which  far  more  than  counterbalance  whatever 
claim  he  may  have  to  abilities,  in  disqualifying  him  for  that 
high  and  momentous  trust."  He  asserts  that  he  believes 
^<  the  attainment  of  power  and  influence,  that  self-exaltation 
is  my  ruling  motive  of  action."  Page  5.  He  repeats  the  same 
opinion  in  page  25.  It  is  the  direct  and  almost  sole  object 
of  his  "  Appeal,"  to  prove  that  I  have  pursued  a  systematic 
course  of  persecution  against  him ;  that  I  have  "  marked  his 
steps  with  eagle  eyed,  aiuxnous  8crutiny^-4ind  even  with  male- 
volenceJ^  Page  73. 

Previously  to  following  Mr.  Jones  through  the  particulars 
by  which  he  attempts  to  support  these  charges,  I  must  beg 
to  be  indulged  in  one  or  two  remarks. 

These  charges  are  of  a  nature  so  serious  that  I  should 
hope  that  I  might  appeal  for  their  fallacy  to  my  general 
character,  unless  they  are  supported  by  incontrovertible 
proof. 

This  proof  ought  to  be — not  the  surmises  of  suspicion ; 
not  trifling  circumstances  of  a  private  nature,  which,  if  ad- 
mitted, no  way  seriously  or  publicly  affect  my  character; 
not  the  discoloured  record  of  conversations  between  our- 
selves, which,  from  their  private  and  confidential  nature, 
ought  never  to  be  adduced,  and  can  never  be  received  as  cor- 
rect evidence ;  not  exaggerated  statements  of  the  ebullitions 
of  momentary  warmth  of  temper,  which,  had  they  taken 
place,  were  more  than  repaired  by  those  expressions  of  regret 
so  soothing  to  wounded  friendship,  and  which,  with  every 
ingenuous  man,  would  seat  the  penitent  offender  more  deeply 
in  his  heart.  No,  Gentlemen,  I  think  you  will  admit  with 
me,  that  these  are  not  the  grounds  on  which  one  friend  should 
expel  another  from  his  bosom ;  on  which  even  an  honourable 
enemy  would  seek  the  downfal  of  his  rival ;  still  less,  on 
which  one  Clergyman  should  denounce  a  brother  for  whom 
he  professed  once  to  feel  <•  the  most  ardent  affection;*  and 
appealing  to  the  "  heart-searcliing  God,"f  hold  him  up  to 
the  world,  as  capable  of  pufsuing  a  "  system  of  tyranny 
"  and  intolerance,"  exacting  "  servile  submission,":!^  de- 
voted to  "  the  attainment  of  power  and  influence,  to  self  ex- 
altation ;••§  a  persecutor,  watching  the  object  of  his  vindictive 
passions  "  with  eagle-eyed,  anxious  scrutiny,"  and  even 
with  "  malevolence,"||  and  «  decrying  and  treating  with 
cruelty, ^^^  all  who  would  not  be  <•  subservient  to  his  views." 

*  Mr.  Jones's  Appeal,  p.  5.    fp.S.    *  p.  3.    §  p.  5.    !|  p.  73.    IT  p- 85. 


\ 


1/ 


l! 


ii 


i  f 


L    \ 


c 


(     6     ) 

An  individual  whose  station  entitles  him  to  confidence^  whose 
general  character  and  conduct  have  proved  that  he  was  not 
unworthy  of  that  confidence,  certainly  ought  not,  but  on 
the  evidence  of  a  series  of  incontrovertible  facts,  to  be  con- 
demned as  capable  of  motives  and  designs  which  should  not 
only  deprive  him  of  power  and  influence  in  the  Church,  but 
consign  him  to  the  execration  of  society. 

It  is  my  object  dispassionately  to  examine,  by  what  induc- 
tion of  particulars  Mr.  Jones  would  establish  his  charges 
against  me. 

In  an  investigation  of  my  conduct  to  Mr.  Jones  smce  our 
settlement  in  this  city,  I  wish  you  to  consider  two  distinct 
periods— the  one  prior,  and  the  other  subsequent  to  the  meet- 
ing of  the  Convention  of  the  Church  in  this  State  in  the  au- 
tnmn  of  1808.  At  that  Convention  I  discovered,  with  asto- 
nishment and  regret,  not  merely  the  dereliction  of  one  whom 
I  had  cherished  as  a  friend,  and  whose  interest  as  a  brother  I 
had  uniformly  sought  to  advance ;  but  his  marked  hostility. 
I  shall  be  able  to  prove  that,  prior  to  this  discovery  in  the  au- 
tumn of  1808,  my  conduct  to  Mr.  Jones  was  more  than  he  could 
require  from  me  as  a  brother  in  the  ministry,  and  all  that 
the  warmest  friendship  could  dictate ;  and  that  subsequent 
to  that  period  I  have  borne  his  unmerited  hostility  with  a 
mildness  and  forbearance,  I  trust  I  may  say  equally  honour- 
able to  me  as  a  man,  a  Christian,  and  a  Clergyman.  I  shall 
be  able  to  show  that  all  the  proofs  by  wliich  he  would  esta- 
blish his  general  charges  are  utterly  unfounded.  You  will 
then,  ( tentlemen,  be  able  to  determine  who  is  the  injured  or 
who  the  persecuted  man. 

I  trust  it  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  remark  that,  I  presume, 
it  cannot  be  considered  as  indelicate  or  indecorous  to  dis- 
prove the  accusations  of  Mr.  Jones  by  the  statements  of  per- 
sons who  are  acquainted  with  facts,  or  who  were  witnesses  of 
our  mutual  behaviour.  When  the  character  of  an  indivi- 
dual is  assailed  by  ^eciiic  charges,  this  is  always  deemed  a 
lawful,  an  honourable,  and  the  most  effectual  mode  of  de- 
fence. Justice  to  character  is  also  an  obligation  of  para- 
mount force;  and  gives  me  a  claim  on  all  persons  acquainted 
with  facts,  for  the  disclosure  of  the  whole  tnitlh  however 
circumstances  of  delicacy  or  of  private  friendship  might 
otherwise  restrain  them. 

The  first  charge  which  Mr.  Jones  adduces  in  support  of 
his  general  charges  against  me,  is  in  substance-— 

That  the  affections  of  tlie  young  men  who  have  lately 
taken  orders,  have  been  alienated  from  him. 


(  7  > 

1  cannot  avoid  remarking  that,  with  every  considerate 
person,  the  stress,  laid  upon  this  fact  that  the  young  men 
preparing  for  Holy  Orders  preferred,  as  their  confidential 
friends  and  the  directors  of  their  studies,  other  persons  than 
Mr.  Jones,  is  an  evidence  of  that  suspicious  temper  which 
unfortunately  for  himself,  for  others,  and  for  the  Church, 
has  led  him  to  view  things  through  a  perverted  medium. 
This  remark  derives  additional  force  from  the  circumstance, 
as  stated  by  himself,  that  in  the  month  of  June,  1809,  it  was 
made  a  condition  of  his  restoring  his  confidence  to  me 
"  that  while  we  should  behave  to'*  ^<  the  young  men  study- 
ing for  the  ministry,'*  "  with  afi*ection  to  be  sure,  yet  we 
ought  not  to  court  flieir  attachment  by  undue  attentions."* 

To  this  general  alienation  of  the  young  men  from  him, 
he  states  two  exceptions ;  the  Rev.  David  Moore,  and  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Powell.  The  «  former,"  he  asserts,  "  has  met 
with  no  countenance."  Mr.  Moore  never  asked,  nor  needed 
any  countenance  from  me.  Soon  after  his  ordination  as 
Deacon,  Lc  was  settled  in  one  of  the  first  livings  in  the 
State,  that  of  Staten-Island,  which  his  father,  the  Rev.  Dr. 
R.  C.  Moore,  liad  a  short  time  previously  resigned.  And  it 
is  a  fact,  that  during  the  short  period  that  cure  was  vacant, 
no  one  Clergyman,  that  might  be  supposed  would  be  in- 
duced to  accept  of  it,  ofiiciated  there.  When  trivial  cir- 
cumstances are  urged  against  an  individual,  he  may  be  ex- 
cused for  adverting  to  circumstances  confessedly  equally  tri- 
vial, which  would  involve  his  accusers  in  the  same  offence 
which  they  attribute  to  him.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Feltus,  in  his 
statement,!  has  adduced  as  a  proof  of  my  pursuing  a  "  shame- 
ful system  of  favouritism  and  proscription,"  that  <*  some  of 
the  most  respectable  situations"  «  in  city  and  country,'* 
"  requiring  age  and  experience,  were  instantly  filled  up  with 
young  gentlemen  just  entering  the  ministry ;  while  learning, 
and  talents,  and  long  services  are  kept  in  the  back  ground,  and 
their  influence  ci*amped  and  lessened  by  the  narrowness  of 
their  situations."^:  The  parish  of  Staten-Island,  to  which 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Moore  had  devoted  a  large  portion  of  his  mi- 
nisterial labours,  is  one  of  the  most  respectable,  and  one  of 
the  most  lucrative  livings  in  the  State ;  and  (to  use  the  lan- 
guage of  Mr.  Feltus)  it  was  "  instantly  seized  on,"  «  as  soon" 
as  it  was  a  "  vacancy,"  by  a  "  young  gentleman  jnst  enter- 
ing the  ministry,"  «  so  that  the  people  can  scarcely  be  said 
to  have  a  choice."    I  beg  pardon.  Gentlemen,  for  calling 


*  Page  16  of  Mr.  Jones's  Appeal. 

t  \i.".Feltus's  statement,  "  uuder  his  own 

'  Al'peal,  p.  104. 


hand,"  p.  104  of  Mr.  Jone?'s  Appeal* 


V' 


(I 


(    8    ) 

your  attention  to  cipcunistanccs  so  trivial.  And  I  should  be 
ashamed  to  dwell  upon  them  for  a  moment,  if  they  had  not 
been  urged  as  proofs  of  a  charge  against  me  no  less  serious 
than  that  of  prosecuting  a  "  shameful  system  of  favouritism 
and  proscription."* 

But  had  Mr»  Moore  asked  or  needed  <^  my  countenance,'' 
I  was  not  without  some  reasons  for  declining  to  extend  it. 
I  was  one  of  his  examining  Presbyters.  His  father  attended 
his  examination ;  and  from  delicacy  I  abstained  from  taking 
part  in  it.  Such  was  my  desire  to  do  nothing  offensive  to 
the  feelings  of  Dr.  Moore,  that,  notwithstanding  some  cir- 
cumstances which  occurred  during  the  examination  of  his 
son  which  would  have  authorized  me,  I  made  no  objection 
to  his  ordination.  He  recently  applied  for  Priest's  orders 
under  a  deficiency  in  the  requisite  age ;  though  the  canons 
expressly  enjoin  a  certain  qualification  as  to  age,  from  which 
they  aUow  no  dispensation;  though  the  rubric  before  the 
oi^dination  offices  enjoins  this  qualification ;  and  though  every 
person  ordained  Deacon  or  Priest  solemnly  declares  to  the 
Bishop,  that  he  believes  he  is  called  to  the  ministry  of  the 
Church  "  according  to  the  will  of  God,  and  the  canons  of 
the  same."  I  should  not  have  adverted  to  this  last  circum- 
stance, but  in  consequence  of  Dr.  M.'s  censure  of  my  op- 
position, when  I  was  a  member  of  the  Standing  Committee, 
to  his  son's  last  application ;  and  I  have  reluctantly  intro- 
duced the  name  of  his  son,  solely  in  explanation  of  the 
charge  brought  against  me  by  Mr.  Jones,  that  this  gentle- 
man "  received  no  countenance"  from  me  and  my  friends. 
I  now  declare,  that  shall  consider  it  my  duty  not  to  permit 
any  of  the  particulars  which  I  have  mentioned  to  influence 
my  future  conduct  to  Mr.  Mooi'e. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Powell,  soon  after  his  arrival  in  this  eoun- 
trj,  was  introduced  to  me  as  a  young  gentleman  who  wished 
to  prepare  for  the  ministry.  I  am  confident  he  will  bear 
me  testimony  that  I  discovered  the  greatest  solicitude  that 
his  views  in  this  most  important  business  should  be  correct; 
and  that  no  pi-ecipitancy  should  mark  his  entrance  on  the 
sacred  office.  He  pursued  his  studies  with  me ;  and  sought 
at  all  times  for  my  counsel.  I  am  satisfied  that  he  will  tes- 
tify that  I  pursued  a  frank  and  undisguised  conduct  to  him ; 
indicative  indeed  of  an  earnest  desire  to  reconcile  my  duty 
to  the  Church  with  the'gratification  of  his  wishes,  but  no 
way  calculated  to  procure  his  attachment  by  those  arts  which 
an  unprincipled  aim  at  popularity  would  dictate.    Under  the 

•  Mr.  Feltus's  statement,  p.  lOi  of  Mr.  Jones's  Appeal. 


(    »   ) 

same  impressions,  I  spoke  to  him  fi'eely  concerning  the 
vacancy  at  Bloomingdale,  and  frankly  stated  to  him  my 
reasons  for  the  opinion  that  his  present  situation  ought  to  be 
preferred  by  him.  The  same  reasons  I  stated  only  to  a 
few  gentlemen,  one  of  whom,  a  leading  member  of  the 
congregation,  earnestly  and  confidentially  pressed  me  for 
jny  opinion.  I  should  certainly,  however,  have  stated 
them  to  any  persons,  whenever  circumstances  seemed  to 
require.  No  sentiment  can  be  more  incorrect  than  that, 
after  the  admission  of  a  person  into  the  ministry,  he  should 
be  left  to  seek  his  advancement  without  the  intrusion  of 
the  counsel  or  the  opinions  of  his  bi^thren.  Such  a 
sentiment  would  sanction  the  opinion  so  erroneous  in 
fact,  that  all  persons  have  «  gifts"  in  no  wise  "  differ- 
ing;" it  would  confound  entirely  the  talents  and  merits 
of  individuals;  it  might  produce  essential  injury  to  the 
Church ;  and  it  would  condemn  the  practice  of  all  vestries 
and  all  congregations,  who,  with  great  propriety,  seek  full 
information  as  to  the  character  and  qualifications  of  the 
Clergyman  whom  they  may  contemplate  to  choose.  Thus, 
from  a  sense  of  duty,  I  incurred  the  risk  of  losing  the  good 
opinion  of  a  young  man,  who  has  always  appeared  sincerely 
attached  to  me.  A  disrespectful  sentiment  of  Mr.  Jones  I 
never  uttered  to  him ;  nor  did  it  ever  occur  to  me  to  inquire 
in  what  relation  he  stood  to  Mr.  Jones.  TThe  assertion,  that 
the  part  which  I  acted  towards  him  was  dictated  by  resent- 
ment at  his  "  behaving  with  decency"  to  this  gentleman,  has 
no  foundation  but  surmise.  These  particulars,  as  well  as 
the  sentiments  of  Mr.  P.  in  regard  to  my  conduct,  will  ap- 
pear from  the  following  statement.  The  distance  of  Mr. 
P.'s  residence  from  a  post  town,  and  the  consequent  uncer- 
tainty when  I  should  be  able  to  hear  from  him,  have  prevent- 
ed my  application  to  him.  The  testimony,  however,  is  of  a 
nature  to  preclude  aU  cavil ;  and  I  am  confident  Mr.  P.  has 
not  hesitated  frequently  and  genei*ally  to  express  the  senti- 
ments contained  in  it. 

<^  I  certify^  that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Powell  and  myself  have 
been  on  terms  of  confidential  intercourse  ever  since  his 
arrival  in  this  country ;  during  the  greater  part  of  which 
time  he  was  an  inmate  of  my  family^  After  Mr.  Jones'i^ 
hostility  to  Dr.  Hobart  began  to  be  generally  known,  Mr. 
Powell  uniformly  bore  testimony  to  Dr.  Hobart*s  friendly 
style  of  conversation  with  respect  to  Mr.  Jones,  particu- 
larly in  one  instance  in  which  Mr.  Jones  was  censured. 
Ife  never  heard  Mr.  Jones's  name  mentioned  by  Dr.  He- 

•    2 


i 


t 


k 


(  w  ) 

liart,  but  in  terms  of  respect  While  he  was  a  candidate 
for  the  ministry  he  attended  Dr.  Hobart's  instruction  once 
or  twice  a  week;  and  during  all  that  time  Dr.  Hobart 
never  spoke  a  disrespectful  word  of  Mr.  Jones— Dr.  Ho- 
bart never  once  introduced  any  subject  of  misunderstand- 
ing that  existed  between  him  and  Mr.  Jones. 

"  I  also  certify,  that  I  have  frequently  heard  Mr.  Powell 
converse  about  the  manner  in  which  Mr.  Jones  brought 
his  name  before  the  public.  He  could  not  speak  <on  that 
subject  without  expressing  himself  in  terms  of  great  mor- 
tification. He  considered  the  assertion  made  by  Mr. 
Jones,  in  his  pamphlet,  respecting  him,  as  incorrect;  that 
Dr.  Hobart  had  always  treated  him  with  the  affection  of  a 
brother;  that  he  would  be  very  ungrateful  in  ascribing  any 
thing  that  Dr.  Hobart  might  have  said  or  done  respecting 
him,  to  other  than  conscientious  and  honourable  motives. 

"  I  certify  moreover,  that  Mr.  Powell  has  assured  me, 
that  as  soon  as  he  heard  of  Mr.  Jones  being  about  to  in- 
troduce his  name  into  his  intended  publication,  that  he 
went  to  dissuade  him  from  taking  such  an  unwarrantable 
step. 

*^  Finally,  I  certify,  that  Mr.  Powell,  finding,  after  the 
publication  of  Mr.  Jones's  pamphlet,  that  his  remon- 
strance had  no  elTect,  expressed  his  great  displeasure  and 
mortification.  This  declaration  I  have  been  induced  to 
make,  as  well  in  justice  to  Dr.  Hobart,  as  to  Mr.  Powell 
during  his  absence ;  knowing  as  I  do  how  extremely  im- 
patient he  has  been  to  contradict  Mr.  Jones's  statement  in 
some  shape  that  may  meet  the  public  eye. 

"  EDM.  D.  BARRY.* 
••'  JSTaV'Fork,  July  18,  1811.' 


99 


The  other  young  men  who  ^^  have  been  studying  for  the 
ministi^y,"  and  who  may  therefore  fall  within  Mr.  Jones's 
allegation  of  being  alienated  from  him,  are  the  Rev.  Mr* 
Clowes,  residing  at  Albany ;  the  Rev.  Mr.  Sayres,  at  Jamaica 
(Long-Island);  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wyatt,  at  Newtown;  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Berrian,  of  New- York,  officiating  at  BelviUe,  (New- 
Jersey)  ;  the  Rev.  Mr.  Kemper,  of  New-York,  now  residing 
at  Philadelphia;  and  the  Rev.  Mr.. Brady,  at  Elizabeth- 
Town  (New-Jersey).  Their  statements  on  this  subject  I 
beg  leave  to  submit  to  you  without  comment. 


*  Mp.  Powell  has  seen  the  original  draft  of  this  certificate,  and  aftor  an  altcra- 
tiw  of  two  or  three  ex[)iessions,  aiijirovcd  of  it  as  it  appears  above. 


(      11      ) 

"  The  Rev.  Mr.  Jones  having  insinuated  in  his  pam- 
phlet, that  Dr.  Hobart  hath  alienated  from  him  the  minds 
of  the  young  men,  candidates  for  the  ministry,  we,  the 
undersigned,  who  are  among  those  alluded  to,  think  it 
our  duty  to  certify,  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Holmrt  never  did 
use  any  improper  means  to  gain  our  affections ;  that  he 
uniformly  spoke  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jones  in  terms  of  respect. 

«  On  the  contrary  we  do  certify,  that  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Jones,  in  his  attendance  upon  the  Theological  Society, 
from  its  institution  in  1806,  did,  by  his  remarks,  induce  us 
to  believe  him  envious  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hobart,  and  to  con- 
sider what  he  said  as  directly  pointed  at  that  gentleman. 

«  TIMOTHY  CLOWES. 
*^  JOHN  BRADY." 

«  I  certify,  that  in  an  intercourse  of  many  years  with 
the  Rev.  Dr,  Hobart,  no  other  impressions  were  ever  made 
on  my  mind,  with  regard  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jones,  than 
those  of  esteem  and  respect.  During  this  period.  Dr. 
Hobart,  in  the  most  free  and  unreserved  manner,  com- 
municated to  me  his  sentiments  and  feelings.  Mr.  Jones 
w  as  fi-equently  spoken  of,  but  always  to  his  advantage. 

«  I'he  period  to  which  I  have  alluded  above  comprises 
the  time  of  my  acquaintance  with  Dr.  Hobart  previous  to 
my  entrance  in  college,  the  time  also  of  my  continuance 
in  college,  and  the  greater  part  of  a  year  after  I  gradu- 
ated. And  it  w^s  not  till  the  spring  of  1809,  nor  till  Dr. 
Hobart  thought  that  he  had  discovered  a  great  change 
both  in  the  feelings  and  deportment  of  Mr.  Jones  towards 
him,  that  I  observed  any  material  alteration  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Dr.  Hobart,  with  respect  to  Mr.  Jones.  Then 
I  remember,  on  one  occasion,  to  have  had  a  brief  detail 
of  some  particulars  in  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Jones ;  but  it 
was  simply  a  measure  of  self-defence  on  the  part  of  Dr. 
Hobart,  unaccompanied  w  ith  bitterness  and  asperity,  and 
softened  by  evei^  suggestion  of  charity  and  honour. 

<^  And  even  since  tWs  conversation  of  1809,  I  have  ob- 
served a  great  degree  of  delicacy,  and  a  very  rigid  regard 
to  justice,  exercised  towards  Mr.  Jones  by  Dr.  Hobart. 
Within  the  last  year  (soon  after  my  entrance  into  orders) 
he  suggested  to  me  the  propriety  of  calling  on  Mr.  Jones, 
and  making  him  a  proffer  of  my  services;  and  he  urged 
it  as  well  from  the  motives  of  civility  and  friendship,  as 
from  the  just  claim  which  Mr.  Jones  had  to  this  maik  ol" 
my  attention. 

^^  WILIJAM  BERRIAN/^ 


h 


ii 


II 


li 


i 


(   f  2  3   • 

<^  As  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jones,  in  his  "  Solemn  Appeal  to 
the  Church,"  has  insiniiatetl  that  undue  means  were  used 
to  alienate  from  hini  the  esteem  of  the  young  men,  can- 
didates for  holy  orders,  I  think  it  my  duty  to  state,  that 
no  means  were  €ver  employed  by  Dr.  Hobart,  or  any  of 
his  friends,  to  injure  Mr.  Jones  in  my  opinion. 

"  I  think  it  my  duty  further  to  state,  that  I  discontinued 
my  visits  to  Mr.  Jones  solely  in  consequence  of  the  di^c- 
speclful,  and,  as  I  thought,  unjust  and  calumniotts  style 
of  remark  in  which  he  indulged  in  my  presence  relative 
to  Dr.  Beach,  Dr.  Hobart,  Mr.  How,  Mr.  Lyell,  and 
others. 

**  GH^ERT  H.  SAYRES.'' 

^f  It  having  been  insinuated  by  the  Rev.  ]Mr.  Jones,  in 
his  "  Appeal,"  that  means  had  been  used  to  alienate  from 
him  the  regard  of  the  young  men,  candidates  for  the  mi- 
nistry, I,  the  undersigned,  who  am  among  those  alluded 
to,  do  certify,  that  neither  the  Rev.  Dr.  Kobari,  nor  any 
other  person,  did  ever  employ  any  means  to  prepossess  me 
in  favour  of  Dr.  Hobart,  or  to  lead  me  to  form  an  unfa- 
voui^able  opinion  of  Mr.  Jones. 

"  I  also  certify,  that  I  was  induced  to  relinquish  my 
habits  of  intimacy  with  Mr.  Jones  solely  in  consequence 
of  the  generally  disrespectful,  and,  as  it  appeared  to  me, 
slanderous  nature  of  the  remarks  I  was  thereby  compelled 
to  hear  concerning  Dr.  Hobart,  the  Rev.  Mr.  How,  and 
others. 

.  "  And  I  also  certify,  that  Mr.  Jones,  by  his  general 
conduct  and  remarks,  for  a  length  of  time,  did  Hmpress 
me  with  the  opinion  that  he  was  envious  of  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Hobart. 

«  W.  E.  WYATT.'* 

"  Tlie  Rev.  Mr.  Jones  having  asserted,  in  his  *  Solemn 
Appeal  to  the  Church,'  that,  '  the  young  men  who  have 
been  studying  for  the  ministry,  and  to  whose  instruction 
he,  in  common  with  others,  devoted  his  days  and  nights; 
Mho  have  \ihited  at  liis  house,  have  been  treated  with  af- 
fection, and  who  have  been  in  the  liabit  of  applying  to 
him,  as  occasions  might  requii*e,  for  direction,  advice,  and 
assistance — that  these,  as  soon  as  they  got  into  orders,  and 
for  a  sliort  time  before,  have  entirely  broken  off  all  inter- 
course, and  have  kept  at  a  very  respectful  distance;'  and 
as  it  is  evident,  from  tlie  nature  of  the  pamphlet,  that  Dr. 
Hobart  is  lierc  aJiuded  to  as  having  used  means  to  alienate 


(  «  ) 

the  regai'd  of  the  young  men  from  Mr.  Jones,  and  caused 
this  intercourse  to  have  been  broken  off;  I  being  among 
those  referred  to,  do  certify,  that  neither  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Hobart,  nor  any  other,  did  ever  employ  any  method  to 
obtain  for  Dr.  Hobart  my  favour,  or  to  depreciate  Mr, 
Jones  in  my  esteem. 

"  And  I  also  certify,  that  from  the  general  conduct  and 
remarks  of  Mr.  Jones,  I  have  for  some  years  been  im- 
pressed with  the  idea,  that  he  was  envious  of  Dr.  Hobart, 
and  "  viewed  him  with  a  jaundiced  eye." 

"  JACKSON  KEMPER. 
«  July  1,  1811." 


I  now  proceed  to  consider— 

The  two  cases  of  injurious  treatment  which  Mr,  Jones 
states  he  received  J^rom  me  previously  to  the  autumn  of  1808. 

A  striking  remark  here  presents  itself.  Previously  to 
this  time,  the  duties  of  our  station,  the  business  of  the 
Church,  or  the  intercourse  of  social  and  brotherly  affection 
brought  together  Mr.  Jones  and  myself  every  few  days. 
Many  cases  must  have  occurred  naturally  leading  to  a  dif- 
ference of  opinion ;  and  surely  innumerable  more,  in  which 
his  feelings  might  have  been  injured,  had  such  been,  as  he 
imputes,  my  deliberate  design.  Now,  that,  during  a  period 
of  eight  years  intercourse  of  this  nature,  a  person  who  has 
displayed  so  much  sensibility  to  the  claims  of  character, 
and,  to  say  the  least,  so  much  suspicion  of  an  interference 
with  these  claims,  should  have  discovered  in  an  individual 
of  such  quick  temper,  and  such  irritating  manner  as  he  at- 
tributes to  me,  only  two  cases  of  complaint,  is  not  only. 
pHma  faciCf  strong  evidence  that  my  deportment  was  all 
that  the  most  suspicious  and  self-important  could  demand , 
but  is  also  a  complete  refutation  of  the  charge  that  I  had 
formed  a  plan  of  "  self-exaltation,"  of  which  he  was  to  be 
the  first  and  most  conspicuous  victim. 

I  must  entreat  your  patience  while  I  examine  these  two 
cases.  You  will  then  be  able  to  judge  whether  they  afforded, 
even  at  the  time,  any  just  cause  of  complaint;  and  particu- 
larly whether,  after  the  reparation  to  his  feelings  which  it 
appears  I  made,  they  should  have  been  cherished  for  years 
by  an  ingenuous  mind,  and  now  urged  as  evidence  ^f  a 
systematic  plan  of  persecution. 


Jli 

1^ 


(  i*  ) 

'Hie  Insertion  of  a  paragraph  in  a  newspaper  in  the  year 
1804*9  relative  to  a  melancholy  event  which  then  occurred, 
and  in  which  our  Church  was  in  some  degree  implicated, 
seemed  to  require  a  counter-representation.  Mr.  Harris, 
Mr.  Jones,  and  myself  agreed,  to  one.  The  Editor  of  the 
paper,  after  some  alteration,  consented  to  insert  it.  Mr. 
Jones  left  us.  The  Editor,  in  company  with  a  friend,  af- 
terwards met  Mr.  Harris  and  myself.  They  stated  to  us 
some  circumstances  which  rendered  in  their  judgment  a  fur- 
ther alteration  still  necessary,  in  order  to  make  the  state- 
ment accord  with  fact.  The  propriety  of  the  alteration  was 
so  ohvious,  that  Mr.  Harris  and  myself  instantly  consented 
to  it,  fully  persuaded  that  Mr.  Jones,  if  present,  would  con- 
cur with  us.  The  following  morning,  in  a  conversation 
with  Mr.  Jones,  at  which  Mr.  Harris  was  not  present,  he 
censured  our  conduct.  He  asserted  that  we  had  "  given  up 
every  thing."  I  defended.  An  argument  ensued.  Mr.  Jones 
certainly  had  a  right  to  his  opinion.  But  as  Mr.  Harris  and 
myself  were  the  majority  of  those  concerned,  and  had  a  right 
to  act ;  as  he  was  persuaded,  according  to  his  own  acknow- 
ledgment, that  we  had  acted  *'  from  the  most  correct  mo- 
tives ;'*  as  the  error,  whatever  it  may  have  heen,  was  com- 
mitted and  not  to  be  remedied ;  it  was,  I  think,  useless  and 
improper  to  notice  the  business,  any  further  than  to  inquire 
our  reasons,  and  in  a  delicate  way  to  express  his  dissent. 
But  to  assert  and  to  defend  the  assertion  that  ^^  we  had 
given  up  every  thing,  the  very  point  that  we  wished  to 
maintain,"  was  an  impeachment  either  of  our  judgment  or 
our  integrity,  certainly  calculated  to  irritate  and  to  oifend. 
Yet  I  merely  remarked,  more  jocularly  than  seriously,  with 
a  view  to  put  an  end  to  the  argument — "  Poh !  Poh !  Mr. 
Jones,  say  no  more  about  it ;  had  you  been  present,  I  am 
sure  you  would  have  concurred  with  us ;  you  would  not  have 
been  displeased  at  the  statement,  had  you  been  consulted." 
Before  we  finally  parted,  when  Mr.  Jones's  opinion  was 
asked,  not  on  this,  but  on  some  other  point,  he  pettishly 
said — "  I  will  not  give  my  opinion,  lest  Mr.  Hobart  should 
sftv  it  was  because  I  was  not  consulted."  Astonished  to  find 
the  circumstance  thus  affected  him,  I  replied — ^^  Why,  Mr. 
Jones,  I  had  no  idea  that  you  would  be  angry— if  you  se- 
riously are  angi'y,  I  am  sorry  for  it — it  was  certainly  how- 
ever not  my  intention  to  make  you  so,  and  I  therefore  can- 
not help  it."  1  really  blush.  Gentlemen,  at  dwelling  for  a 
moment  on  so  trifling  an  occurrence,  which  I  must  think 
should  not  have  rested  for  any  time  on  Mr.  Jones's  mind ; 
liave  been  a  matter  of  record :  and  years  afterwards  pub* 


(    IS    ) 

lished  to  the  world.  Unfortunately,  however,  I  have  not  the 
choice  of  subjects  on  which  to  address  you,  or  this  certainly 
would  not  be  one  of  them. 

Still  less  would  I  notice  the  second  occurrence  which  Mr. 
Jones  urges  as  cause  of  complaint  against  me. 

"Were  it  true  that  I  had 'been  so  far  insensible  to  com- 
mon delicacy  and  decency  as  to  treat  with  insult  a  brother 
and  a  colleague  while  accompanying  him  at  the  head  of  a 
funeral ;  had  he  so  far  participated  in  my  guilt  and  shame 
as  to  protract  the  bickering,  by  «  pleading  in  his  own  de- 
fence,"* (for  had  he  been  silent,  the  conversation  must 
soon  have  closed)  ; — still,  I  am  persuaded,  you  will  think, 
that,  if  not  in  compassion  for  me,  from  regard  to  the  cleri- 
cal character,  to  the  Church,  to  religion,  no  considerations 
should  have  induced  him  to  proclaim  the  humiliating  oc- 
currence to  the  world.  But  I  have  not  to  acknowledge 
my  guilt  or  shame.  I  have  distinct  recollection  of  the  oc- 
currence. I  am  compelled  to  say  that  Mr.  Jones's  repre- 
sentation  of  it  is  erroneous.  There  was  no  insult  to  his* 
feelings ;  no  angry  remarks ;  no  more  than  an  argument  be- 
tween us,  earnest  indeed,  but  in  no  respect  indecorous.  I 
was  asked  by  Mr.  Jones  to  officiate  for  him  on  a  Sunday^ 
when  I  was  to  be  at  leisure,  in  order  to  admit  of  his  sup- 
plying some  vacant  churches.  According  to  Mr.  Jones's 
statement,  I  instantly  made  a  most  indelicate  reply — «  He 
(Dr.  Hobart)  said,  no,  he  would  not ;  he  had  no  notion  of 
doing  my  duty  without  a  return,"  &c.  &c.  Is  it  possible 
that  I  could  have  made  so  indecent  an  answer  to  a  request 
so  reasonable  ?  Could  I  have  used  to  a  brother  and  a  col- 
league language  unworthy  of  a  gentleman?  What  could 
have  been  my  motives  ?  Hostility  to  Mr.  Jones  ?  At  that 
monrint,  I  declare,  I  cherished  him  as  my  friend.  By  his 
own  statement,  two  years  had  elapsed  since  the  first  occur- 
rence took  place  which  he  deemed  offensive.  Was  the  re- 
quest unreasonable  or  irritating?  On  the  contrary,  the 
officiating  for  each  other  on  their  leisure  Sundays  was  a 
matter  well  understood  between  the  Clergy  of  Trinity 
Church.  My  brethren,  I  am  confident  will  testify,  that  on 
all  such  occasions  I  have  been  prompt  in  my  compliance  with 
their  requests.  One  of  them  in  particular,  as  well  as  his 
family,  has,  I  know,  often  contrasted  my  accommodating 
conduct  in  this  respect  with  the  contrary  spirit  d/splayed  by 
Mr.  Jones.  I  was  not  guiUy  of  the  indecorum  of  the  reply 
imputed  to  me  by  this  gentleman.     I  instantly  assented  to 

*  Aimeal,  p.  9. 


\ 


X 


I"! 


(     16     ) 

his  request.  But  on  my  stating  that  I  should  expect  the 
same  favour  from  him,  as  I  had  also  to  supply  s  ome  vacant 
churches,  to  my  very  great  surprise  he  refused ;  on  the 
ground  of  some  peculiar  circumstances  in  the  situation  of 
the  congregations  in  which  he  proposed  to  officiate.  An 
argument  ensued,  in  which  I  endeavoured  to  prove  his  re- 
quest was  not  reasonable,  and  he  to  defend  it ;  and  I  finally 
concluded  by  telling  him  that  the  return  of  these  favours 
was  a  matteV  well  understooi!  by  the  Clergy,  and  required 
by  none  more  invariably  than  by  himself;  that  it  appeared 
to  me  very  unfair  that  he  should  expect  me  to  officiate  for 
him  when  he  supplied  vacant  parishes,  while  lie  should  de- 
cline returning  the  favour  to  me  under  similar  circum- 
stances 5  and  that  thus  I  should  be  compelled  to  leave  my 
appointments  unfulfilled,  or  to  come  upon  others  to  perform 
a  duty  for  which  I  had  a  fair  claim  on  him  ,•  that  under  this 
view  of  the  subject  I  must  really  decline  complying  with 
his  request.  This  was  the  substance  of  our  conversation, 
and  this  the  amount  of  my  oflTence. 

But  what  had  the  Church,  what  had  the  public  to  do  with 
these  private  misunderstandings  (admitting  them  to  be  such) 
between  Mr.  Jones  and  myself?  Is  it  not  very  possible  that 
in  the  course  of  several  years  intercourse,  such  little  differ- 
ences might  take  place  between  the  best  friends,  without 
any  diminution  of  their  mutual  attaeliment?  What  purpose 
does  the  statement  of  private  conversations,  to  which  none 
were  privy  but  the  parties,  generally  answer,  but  to  put 
them  at  issue  ?  What  force  could  these  representations  of 
Mr.  Jones,  admitting  their  correctr.ess,  have  in  establishing 
his  charges  against  me  ?  Was  it  amhition,  was  it  self-exal- 
tation^  was  it  violence,  was  it  a  spirit  of  overhearing  persecu- 
tion which  prompted,  so  soon  after  the  oifences,  thc^ost 
humiliating  expressions  of  sorrow  and  penitence — ^which  led 
me  in  the  first  occurrence,  to  tell  Mr.  Jones  that  I  "  was 
sorry  for  what  had  occurred  ;'*  to  "  palliate,'*  and  to  "  sug- 
gest that  the  attending  circumstances  were  irritating;"  to 
beg  him  to  "  resume  our  former  familiar  intercourse"=i«=— 
which,  in  the  last  offensive  occurrence,  led  me  to  "  acknow- 
ledge the  impropriety  of  my  conduct;"  to  "  plead  the  quick- 
ness of  my  temper,"  and  to  "  offer  to  comply  with  all  that 
he  proposed?"!  I  can  scarcely  believe  it  possible  that  the 
same  jjen  which  recorded  these  honourable,  I  may  say,  these 
singular  instances  of  humility,  of  Christian  magnanimity, 
should  have  represented  the  man  who  exercised  these  diffi- 

*  Mr.  Jcncs's  Appeal,  p.  7.  f  AppeaJ,  p.  9. 


C  1?  ) 

tBult  virtues,  as  the  ambitious,  the  overbearing,  the  violent, 
the  systematic  persecutor  of  the  individual  at  whose  feet  he 
thus  poured  forth  his  acknowledgments. 

But  truth  compels  me  to  decline  the  merit  of  great  part  of 
this  praise.  I  never  made  such  acknowledgments,  for  I  never 
so  ofl^ended.  I  indeed  felt  a  pleasure  in  conveying  to  Mr. 
Jones,  with  whom  it  was  my  earnest  wish  to  live  in  the  exercise 
of  affection,  the  sincere  expressions  of  regret  that  I  had,  unde- 
signedly, wounded  his  feelings ;  and  in  offering  to  comply  with 
his  requests,  however  unreasonable  I  might  have  considered 
them.  This  ingenuousness,  which  should  have  been  a  proof 
to  him  of  my  sensibility  to  amiable  and  Christian  principles ; 
which  he  should  have  considered  as  a  renewed  pledge  of  my 
friendship  for  him,  unfortunately  only  led  him  to  view  me  with 
<^  distrust."*  Unsuspecting  and  open  as  I  was  in  my  inter- 
course with  a  man  whom  I  supposed  my  friend,  he  was 
viewing  me,  by  his  own  confession,  with  "  distrust."  Influ- 
enced by  the  belief  that  "  the  attainment  of  power  and  in- 
fluence was  my  ruling  motive  of  action,"  he  was  watching 
the  frank  and  unguarded  moments  of  a  friend  to  detect,  to 
treasure  in  his  memory,  to  record,  at  a  favourable  moment 
to  proclaim  to  the  world,  whatever  the  **  jaundiced  eye"  of 
suspicion  could  discolour  and  represent  as  personally  offen- 
sive, or  as  proofs  of  an  unprincipled  ambition.  And  yet, 
what  is  the  catalogue  of  my  offences  ?  What  are  the  proofs 
that  self-exaltation  was  my  ruling  aim  ?  It  was  not  until 
the  year  1804,  when  Mr.  Jones  and  myself  had  been  for 
three  years  connected  as  friends  and  colleagues,  that,  by  his 
own  declaration,!  any  "  unpleasant  occurrence"  took  place 
between  us.  "  Two  years"  more  elapsed  before  another 
event  occurred  that  he  deemed  offensive.  Both  these  occur- 
rences were  perfectly  trivial.  In  both  I  made  the  most  am- 
ple reparation  to  his  feelings,  as  I  thought  then,  and  still 
think,  unnecessarily  wounded.  And  three  years  more  elaps- 
ed before  the  third  instance  noted  by  Mr.  Jones  occurred ;  in 
which,  according  to  his  own  representation,  I  "  expressed  my 
regret  at  what  had  taken  place."!  Who,  may  I  not  ask,  that 
has  passed  through  such  an  ordeal,  has  come  from  it  more 
pure  ? 

I  must  incidentally  remark,  that  the  only  regret  that 
I  felt,  or  could  have  expressed,  arose  not  from  (he  con- 
sciousness of  having  injured  Mr.  Jones,  for  at  this  time 
I  had  discovered  his  secret  and  hostile  assaults  upon  my 
character,  and  of  course  felt  myself  the  injured  man ;  hni 


Appealj  p.  9.  f  Appeal,  p.  7. 


i  Appeal^  p.  15. 


i 


3 


111 


I'll 


iM 


(/. 


I'  . 


(     18     ) 

from  the  knowledge  of  dispositions  cherished  on  his  part/ 
which  threatened  not  only  the  interrnption  of  our  friendly 
intercourse,  hut  the  interests  of  the  Church  :— and  the  event 
has  proved  mv  apprehensions  too  true. 

In  the  autumn  of  1808,  I  was  the  cordial,  the  unsusi^ect- 
ins,  and  the  tried  friend  of  Mr.  Jones.  I  say  his  tried  friend—, 
for  so  early  as  the  year  ISO^b  or  1805,  a  particular  friend 
wlie  is  now  in  a  distant  State,  told  me  that  he  thought  it  his 
duty  to  put  me  on  my  guard  in  my  intercourse  with  hira ; 
that  he,  Mr.  Jones,  had  expressed  to  him 'some  intimations 
of  the  propriety  of  a  change  or  rotation  in  the  offices  of  the 
Church,  which  he  was  persuaded  were  aimed  at  myself; 
that  he  knew  that  he  (Mr.  Jones)  in  a  large  company  had 
expressed  himself  in  ver>  unfavourdMe  terms  of  a  rex^ent 
publication  of  mine,  and  lamented  the  injurious  effects  which 
it  was  calculated  to  produce.  My  reply  instantly  was,  that 
I  did  not  and  would  not  believe  Mr.  Jones  unfriendly  to  me  ; 
diat  I  never  had  felt  the  least  reserve  in  the  affectionate  m- 
tercourse  which  subsisted  between  us  ;  that  certainly  1  had 
no  right  to  find  fault  with  Mr.  Jones  for  any  opinion  which 
he  chose  to  entertain  of  any  publication  of  mine ;  that  I 
was  indeed  surprised  at  hearing  at  his  disajiprobation  of  the 
performance  in  question,  as  I  had  submitted  a  copy  to  his 
inspection,  and  he  returned  it  to  me,  saying,  that  he  thought 
it  calculated  to  do  good  ;^  tliat  I  was  persuaded  if  he  had 
reflected,  he  would  have  been  sensible  that,  considering  the 
friendship  which  subsisted  between  us,  candour  required  that 
he  should  not  have  expressed  these  sentiments  to  others, 
without  previously  acquainting  me  with  them ;  but  that  I 
should  not  permit  myself  to  feel  in  the  least  degree  unplea- 
sanllv  towards  him,  until  I  had  seen  him  and  had  an  expla- 
nation from  him.  This  explan-ition  I  accordingly  sought. 
He  acknowledged  the  fact,  but  disclaimed  all  intention  ot 
acting  uncandidlv  towards  me.  I  was  gratified  with  his  de- 
clarations. I  gave  him  tlie  full  confidence  which  under  the 
same  circumstances  I  felt  I  should  expect  from  him ;  and 
from  that  moment  until  three  or  four  years  afterwards,  when 
I  discovered  that  he  had  indeed  been  pursuing  a  systematic 
course  of  hostility  against  me,  I  do  not  recollect  that  the 
circumstance  passed  once  through  my  mind. 

Had  I  felt  any  lealousv  of  Mr,  Jones,  or  any  unfriendli- 
ness to  him,  there  were  not  wantuig  other  circumstances 
during  this  period,  calculated  to  cherish  the  one  disposition, 
and  in  a  degree  to  authorize  the  other.     I  almost  daily  heard 

•  I  believe  1  still  have  in  my  ppsses.jon  tlij.'  popy  v/ilh  his  cdlT-ctions  in  the 
Diargin. 


(      1^      ) 

individuals  express  themselves  of  Mr.  Jones,  as  a  man  of  a  con- 
tracted, selfish,  self-important,  envious  temper.  1  disi-egarded 
these  representations,  made  indeed  in  most  cases  without  any 
direct  intention  of  prejudic  ing  me  against  him.  1  uniformly 
defended  him.  1  net  cnlv  clt ftrdtd  him :  I  was  his  warm  pa- 
negyrist.   All  this  will  appear  from  the  statements  which  I 

sh  all  exhibit  to  you. 

Mr.  Joneses  conduct  also  would  have  afforded  just  cause 
for  suspicion.  He  speaks  indeed*  of  his  "  taking  the 
first  steps  to  place  me  in  the  fore-ground;  while  he  was 
content  to  remain  out  of  view.''  1  o  what  steps  he  alludes,  I 
know  not.  I  was  once  informed  indeed  by  ]Mr.  Harris,  that 
he  took  to  himself  some  credit,  with  what  degi'ee  of  justice 
I  do  not  know,  for  a  gi*atuily  which  several  ^ears  ago,  had 
been  granted  me  by  the  Vestry,  in  consideration  of  some  pe- 
culiar expenses  to  which  I  had  been  exposed ;  and  that  he 
defended  the  propriety  of  this  grant  against  the  complaint 
of  one  of  my  colleagues.  Satisfied  however,  I  am,  that  on 
this  occasion  the  Vestrj  could  not  have  needed  his  influence 
or  sanction  to  this  act  'of  kindness  to  me.  And  1  recollect 
that  on  one  occasion,  in  the  institution  of  the  Theological 
S  ociety,  he  acknowledged  the  fact  of  my  being  a  resident 
minister  in  the  cit\  before  he  was,  and  gave  me  the  prece- 
dence. But  most  certainly  his  general  conduct  did  not  look 
as  if  he  was  "  content  to  remain  out  of  view.'*  1  was  an 
older  assistant  minister  in  Trinity  Church,  and  of  course 
entitled  to  the  precedence.  1  liis  on  all  occasions  I  offered 
to  him ;  and  he  almost  invariably  accepted  it ;  thus  holding 
himself  out  to  public  view,  as  next  in  standing  to  Dr.  Bea*-h» 
This  retiring  behaviour  on  my  part  was  ceniured  In  several 
of  my  brethren;  but  so  inconsistent  with  delicacy  and  dignity 
appeared  to  me  such  contests  for  superiority,  and  no  incompati- 
ble in  particular  with  the  clerical  character,  that  I  persevered 
in  my  yielding  course  of  conduct.  Mr.  Jones  and  myself  had 
not  been  settled  here  but  a  few  months,  when  a  most  influen- 
tial Clergyman  of  the  Church,  who  appeared  aware  of  his 
particular'cast  of  mind,  advised  me  to  request  of  the  Vestry 
to  settle  the  point  of  seniority  between  us.  Averse,  as  1  have 
before  mentioned,  to  the  appearance  even  of  contests  for  pre- 
eminence among  Clergymen,  and  reposing  fully  in  the  honour 
of  Mr.  Jores,  and  in  his  affection  for  me,  I  took  no  steps 
whatsoever  in  the  business ;  and  so  little  concern  did  it  give 
jme,  that  I  did  not  even  know  till  within  this  year  past,  that 
soon  after  our  Bettlement  here,  a  vote  had  passed  your  body, 


Appeal,  p. 


5. 


(     20     ) 

establishing  my  seniority  as  an  assistan  minister.  These 
trifles  are  not  urged  as  complaints  against  him,  or  as  proofs 
of  merit  in  myself.  But  to  certain  minds,  "  trifles"  are 
'<  confirmations  strong."  Towards  Mr.  Jones,  I  declare  I 
felt  no  suspicion. 

Until  the  autumn  of  1808,  (I  repeat  it)  I  was  his  cordial, 
unsuspecting,  and  tried  friend.     The  statements  to  which  I 
shall  call  your  attention  will  show  how   honourable,  how 
correct,  how  disinterested  and  how  zealous  was  my  friendship 
for  him.    I  alw  ays  indeed  lamented  the  absence  in  Mr.  Jones 
of  that  warmth  and  frankness  which  bind  kindred  minds  to 
each  other,  and  so  much  augment  their  enjoyments.     Still, 
what  appeared  to  me  constitutional  imperfections  of  charac- 
ter, no  way  diminished  the  sincerity  of  my  regard.     So  en- 
tirely did  I  repose  in  his  friendship,  that  the  "  two  unplea- 
sant occurrences,"   which  I  have  already  explained,   and 
which  he  has  placed  in  the  front  of  his  charges  against  me, 
had  entirely  passed  from  my  mind ;  and  when  I  was  informed 
by  Mr.  Harris,  in  the  summer  of  1809,  that  Mr.  Jones  had 
di*awn  up  a  statement  to  be  presented  to  the  Bishop  com- 
plaining of  my  injurious  treatment  of  him,  I  was  perfectly 
astonished,  and  was  wholly  unconscious  to  what  he  could  re- 
fer.    You  may  judge,  Gentlemen,  what  were  my  feelings, 
when  I  incidentally  discovered  that  while  I  supposed  Mr. 
Jones  and  myself  were  sincerely  united  in  sentiments  of 
friendship,  which  commencing  with  our  connection  as  col- 
leagues in  Trinity  Church,  had  been  strengthened  by  the 
intercourse   of  years,   he   had  been  engaged  in   a   secret 
and  violent  attack  upon  my  character;  that  he  had  repre- 
sented me  as  a  man  of  unprincipled  ambition,  the  calum- 
niator of  my  brethren;  and  by  these  and  other  odious  re- 
presentations had  endeavoured  to  blast  my  character  and 
entirely  to  destroy  my  influence  in  the  Church.     The  cir- 
cumstances attending  this  discovery,  would  still  further  sa- 
tisfy you  of  my  unsuspecting  friendship  for  Mr.  Jones,  and 
of  the  difficulty  w  ith  which  I  could  be  brought  to  believe  that 
lie  entertained  any  hostile  designs  against  me.     But  the  na- 
ture of  his  " Appetd"  compels  me  so  frequently  to  dwell  on  mi- 
laite  circumstances,  that  1  am  unwilling  to  detain  you  with 
ihem  in  the  present  instance. 

The  truth  of  all  these  representations,  with  respect  to  the 
relative  behaviour  of  myself  and  Mr.  Jones,  will  appear  from 
the  following  statements,  which  I  now  submit  to  your  atten- 
tive and  candid  perusal.  And  I  confidently  trust  that  when 
you  have  perused  them,  so  far  from  condemning  me  for  ex- 
hibiting them,  you  will  give  me  credit  for  that  forbearance 


(    2i    ) 

Iwhich  so  long  withheld  this  full  justification  of  my  charac* 

ter  from  the  attacks  which  it  has  sustained. 

It  is  necessary  for  me  to  premise  that  some  of  these 
[statements  were  procured  in  April  last,  at  the  suggestion  of 
Iseveral  friends  who  deemed  it  proper  that  I  should  prepare 
Jmyself  with  the  means  of  repelling  the  accusations  of  Mr. 
IJones ;  and  some  of  these  statements  have  been  more  re- 
Icently  obtained.    Part  of  them  also  relate  to  points  which 

I  shall  subsequently  consider. 

«  J^eW'Fork,  •Apil  1,  1811. 
^<  I  do  liereby  certify,  that  at  the  Convention  of  the 
Church  in  1808,  Dr.  Hobart  informed  me  that  he  had  rea- 
son to  believe  that  Mr.  Jones  entertained  unfriendly  senti- 
ments to  him,  and  that  it  was  Mr.  Jones's  intention,  and 
that  of  some  other  persons,  to  endeavour  to  put  Dr.  Hobart 
out  of  the  office  he  held  of  Secretary  of  the  Convention  ; 
that  Dr.  Hobart  expressed  to  me  his  wish,  in  order  to  pre- 
serve peace,  to  resign  that  and  other  offices  which  he  held; 
from  which  I  dissuaded  him ;  that  previously  to  this  period 
I  never  heard  Dr.  Hobart  express  himself  concerning  Mr. 
Jones  but  in  the  most  friendly,  aflbotionate,  and  respect- 
ful terms ;  that  he  always  discovered  a  solicitude  to  pre- 
vent Mr.  Jones  from  supposing  that  he  was  neglected  in 
the  concerns  of  the  Church ;  that  he  (Dr.  Hobart)  fre- 
quently declined  public  duties,  which  I  requested  him  to 
perform,  in  favour  of  Mr.  Jones  and  others ;  that,  though 
as  an   older  Assistant  Minister  in   Trinity  Church  he 
ranked  before  Mr.  Jones,  he  often  relinquished  his  pre- 
cedence to  Mr.  Jones,  and  when  I  expressed  to  him  my 
opinion  that  he  was  incorrect  in  so  doling,  he  stated,  as 
his  reason,  his  wish  to  preserve  peace  and  to  prevent  un- 
pleasant collision  with  Mr.  Jones ;  and  when,  on^  any  oc- 
casion of  the  meeting  of  the  Clergy  on  the  business  of 
the  Church,  I  omitted  to  mention  the  name  of  Mr.  Jones, 
from  the  circumstance  of  its  being  inconvenient  to  notify 
him,  on  account  of  his  residing  out  of  town.  Dr.  Hobart 
suggested  the  propriety  of  inviting  Mr.  Jones,  and  took 
on  himself  the  trouble  of  giving  him  notice.    And  further, 
I  deem  myself  in  justice  bound  to  Dr.  Hobart  to  declare, 
that  as  far  as  I  have  had  an  opportunity  of  observing,  his 
conduct  in  the  afi'airs  of  the  Church  has  been  conciliating, 
honourable,  and  correct. 

«  BENJAMIN  MOORE, 
•  BUhop  of  the  ProU  Episc.  Church  in  the  State  of  JS*€w-Fork^ 

«  By  his  son  CUEMENT  C.  MOORE." 


!!!■ 


ii' 


HU 


1 1 


(   a«   ) 

"  As  it  is  the  duty  of  every  man  to  do  justice  to  the 
character  of  others,  especially  of  those  whose  office  it  is 
to  fiponiote  vii'tue  and  religion,  I  do  hereby  certify,  that 
the  K<»v.  Dr.  llobart  has,  on  all  occasions,  when  I  have 
been  present,  spoken  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jones  with  tender- 
nens,  and  in  terms  in  no  degree  indicating  a  hostile  dispo- 
sition ;  and  this,  when  he  knew  that  Mr.  Jones  had  long 
been  in  the  habit  of  speaking  disrespectfully  and  bitterly 
of  him.  And  I  do  further  declare,  that  I  myself  have 
heard  Dr.  Hobart,  and  that  others  on  whose  veracity  I 
can  di'pend  have  assured  me,  that  they  have  heard  him 
defend  the  character  of  jVIi*.  Jones,  when  it  was  treated 
with  disres|)ect ;  and  on  no  occasion  discover  the  least 
malevolence  towards  hi  in.  In  short,  i  have  always  been 
astonished  at  the  forbearance  and  mildness  of  Dr.  llobart, 
considering  the  cruel  persecution,  which,  for  a  long  time 
he  has  suffered. 

«  JOHN  BOWDEN. 

«  Columbia  College,  April  10,  1811." 

"  I  hereby  ceiliiy,  that  at  various  times  I  have  heard 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Jones's  name  mentioned,  when  allusions 
Vfere  made  to  his  character,  talents,  and  other  qualifica- 
tions, in  the  presence  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hobart ;  that,  on 
every  such  occasion,  Dr.  llobart  never  spoke  of  Mr. 
Jones  but  with  the  utmost  respect,  and  even  affection. 
Whenever  the  misunderstanding  between  him  and  Mr. 
Jones  was  mentioned,  he  represented  lum  as  mistaken  al- 
together, in  regard  to  his.  Dr.  llobart's,  sentiments  to- 
wards him;  that,  however  conscientious  a  Clergyman, 
and  worthy  a  man  Mr.  Jones  was,  he  had  taken  up  cer- 
tain notions,  and  drawn  conclusions  from  them  altogether 
unwarranted  by  his.  Dr.  Hobart's,  conduct  towards  him. 
,  1  also  certify,  that  even  within  a  few  weeks  I  was  present 
in  a  large  company,  when  a  direct  charge  was  made 
against  Mr.  Jones  for  neglecting  his  duty  on  some  recent 
occasion ;  that  Dv,  Hobart  entered  warmly  on  the  vindica- 
tion of  Mr.  Jones,  and  showed  satisfactorily  tnat  he  was 
altogether  blameless.  I  further  certify,  that  Dr.  Hobart 
has  often  conlldentially  si)oken  to  me  respecting  the  dif- 
ference existing  between  himself  and  Mr.  Jones :  that 
then  also  he  spoke  of  Mr.  Jones  with  respect  and  tender- 
ness ;  and  mentioned  to  me  the  substance  of  several  con- 
versations which  he.  Dr.  Jlobart,  had  with  him,  to  con- 
Yince  him  that  his;  Mr.  Jones's^  conduct  towards  him  was 


(     «3     ) 

incorrect ;   and  that  he.  Dr.  Hobart,  cherished  no  un- 
friendly sentiment  towards  him. 

«  EDM.  D.  BARRY. 

^'  Xeiv-ForTi,  April  ist,  1811." 

«  JVew-Forfc,  April  Sth,  1811. 

«  Rev.  Sir, 

<^  Though  I  can  hardly  think  it  necessary,  yet  at  your 
request  I  do  most  cheerfully  declare,  to  all  whom  it  may 
concern,  that  yoU  have,  as  far  as  has  come  within  my 
knowledge,  acted  towards,  and  <i|'oken  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Jones  in  a  friendly  manner ;  and  in  the  instance  in  which 
it  seems  you  are  charged  witli  having  manifested  a  dispo- 
sition to  persecute  and  depress  him,  namely,  in  his  being 
left  out  of  the  Standing  Committee  of  the  Church  in  this 
State,  you  did,  when  it  was  first  contemplated  to  be  done, 
namely,  in  the  Convention  of  1809,  discourage  and  oppose 
it,  and  to  the  last,  when  it  was  done,  in  1810,  expressed 
your  doubts  respecting  the  expediency  of  the  measure.  I 
further  declare,  that  in  more  than  one  instance  in  which  I 
thought  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jones  acted  with  some  incorrect- 
ness towards  you,  and  in  a  wanner  not  the  most  likely, 
us  I  then  thought,  and  still  believe,  to  promote  the  peace, 
harmony,  and  interest  of  the  Church,  you  have  been 
prompt  and  friendly  in  advocating  him ;  insomuch,  that 
I  have  commended  at  the  time,  the  charity  which  led  you 
to  extenuate  the  faults,  either  real  or  apparent,  of  your 
brethren. 

^<  I  could,  were  it  necessary,  recite  circumstances,  and 
name  particular  occasions  which  would  abundantly  prove 
the  truth  of  this  statement.  They  indeed  are  so  nume- 
rous, that  I  have  always  entertained  but  one  opinion  of 
your  conduct  toward  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jones — that  it  savoured 
much— very  much  indeed  of  a  spirit  of  forbearance,  and 
an  earnest  desire  to  conciliate. 

"  I  remain.  Rev.  Sir, 
"  Yours  respectfully, 

*•  THO.  LYELL. 

"  Rev.  Dr.  Hobart.'' 

*«  I  can  most  truly  say  that,  as  far  as  my  knowledge 
has  extended.  Dr.  Hobart  constantly  acted  toward  Mr. 
Jones  the  part  of  a  zealous  and  disinterested  friend. 
When  I  was  called  to  the  city  of  New- York,  I  received 
toy  impression  of  Mr.  Jones's  character  from  Dr.  Hobart. 
It  was,  certainly,  of  a  favoui'able  kind.    I  do  not  reeol- 


',ii 


!ii' 


Ui 


II 


i 


(     24      ) 

leet  to  have  heard  him,  at  that  time,  say  one  disrespect- 
ful word  of  Mr.  Jones.  On  the  contrary,  he  always 
vindicated  him  from  objections,  and  appeared  anxious  to 
recommend  him  to  the  esteem  of  all  his  friends.  And  I 
do  know  that  Dr.  Hobart  has  taken  no  small  pains  to  re- 
move unfavourable  impressions  that  existed  relative  to 
Mr.  Jones.  In  those  families,  in  particular,  in.  which 
Dr.  Hobavt  has  been  intimate,  not  one  word  could  be  ut- 
tered unfavourable  to  Mr.  Jones  without  calling  forth  bis 
pointed  opposition.  In, fact,  a  man  eould  not  have  been 
more  active  and  zealous  in  the  cause  of  his  brother  than 
Br.  Hobart  has  always  appeared  to  me  to  be  in  the  cause 
of  Mr.  Jones.  He  regarded  him  as  a  man  of  zeal  and  of 
correct  princijdes,  and  regretted  to  see  him  stand  not  so 
well  as  might  be  wished  >vith  many  of  the  people  of  our 
congregations.  I  know  that  he  has  made  at  least  one 
person  his  enemy  by  his  readiness  to  defend  a  measure  in 
which  Mr.  Jones  was  particularly  concerned.  And  Dr. 
Beach  has  been,  several  times,  almost  offended  with  him 
for  vindicating  Mr.  Jones  in  cases  in  which  Dr.  Beach 
eonsidered  his  condujet  as  reprehensible. 

<*  I  can  also  state  that  I  know  Dr.  Hobart  has  been  con- 
sidered by  the  Bishop,  Dr.  Bowden,  Dr.  Beach,  and 
others,  as  yielding  the  precedence  to  Mr.  Jones  in  cases 
in  which  he  ought  not  to  have  yielded  it ;  and  that  they 
have  thought  his  forbearing  and  conciliatory  temper  has 
carried  \n\j^  further  tban  the  principles  of  strict  propriety 
would  permit.  In  this  opinion  I  have  most  fully  concur- 
red. In  short,  I  can  most  conscientiously  declare,  from 
an  attentive  observance  of  the  conduct  of  Dr.  Hobart  to- 
ward Mr.  Jones,  that  it  has  exhibited  an  example  of  no- 
bleness, of  forbearance,  of  tenderness,  and  tljis  under 
circumstances  calculated  to  excite  feelings  of  high  indig- 
nation, that  has  filled  me  with  the  sincerest  admiration, 
and  that,  I  am  persuaded,  needs  only  to  be  known  to  com- 
mand universal  respect  and  praise. 

«*  When,  in  the  autumn  of  1808,  Dr.  Hobart  dis- 
covered that  Mr.  Jones  had  been  engaged  in  denouncing 
him  as  a  man  of  unprincipled  ambition,  and  in  forming 
a  combination  to  turn  him  out  of  office.  Dr.  Hobart 
was  disposed  to  make  every  allowance.  When  the 
baseness  of  Mr.  Jones's  conduct  was  pointed  out,  he  ex- 
cused and  palliated.  And  I  know  that  he  preserved  si- 
lence on  the  subject  of  the  injuries  which  he  was  receiv- 
ing from  Mr.  Jones,  except  among  a  few  of  his  confiden- 
tial friends.    Tlius  he  continued  to  act,  endeavouring  to 


(    25    ) 

soothe  Mr.  Jones  by  the  most  friendly  and  respectful  de^ 
portment* 

«  THOMAS  Y.  HOW/^ 

Mr.  Jones,  in  his  *•  Appeal,'^  states  that  Dr.  Beach,  Mr. 
Harris,  and  Dr.  Moore,  have  received  injurious  treatment 
from  me.  As  my  intercourse  with  the  two  former  gentle- 
men has  been  intimate  and  unreserved,  it  seemed  proper 
that  I  should  obtain  their  testimony,  in  order,  to  avoid  any 
suspicions  injurious  to  myself  which  might  arise  from  the 
want  of  it.  I  accordingly  addressed  three  questions  to  Dr. 
Beaeh«  The  third  question  and  its  answer  shall  appear  ia 
its  proper  place.  The  two  first,  with  the  answers  which  I 
received  from  him,  here  follow. 

"  isi  (luestion.  At  the  Convention  in  the  fall  of  1808, 
did  I  not  state  to  you  my  regret  at  having  discovered  that 
Mr.  Jones  entertained  hostile  sentiments  towards  me; 
and  express  to  you  my  intention,  with  a  view  of  soothing 
him,  and  preserving  peace,  of  declining  a  re-election  to 
the  offices  which  I  then  held  in  the  Church ;  and  did  you 
not  dissuade  me  from  this  determination  ?'' 

"  Answer.  You  did  state  to  me  your  regret^  and  ex- 
pressed your  determination  to  decline  a  re-election^  as  I 
had  never  heard  of  any  combination  against  you,  I  did 
earn«stly  dissuade  you  from  your  determination." 

"  2d  Question.  Previously  to  this  period,  was  I  not,  as 
far  as  you  know,  the  friend  and  advocate  of  Mr.  Jones  ; 
and  have  you  not  heard  me,  on  many  occasions,  defend 
him,  when  he  was  criminated  V* 

^*  Answer.  I  cannot  recollect  any  particular  crimina- 
tion of  Mr.  Jones,  on  occasion  of  which  you  became  his 
advocate  and  defender,*  but  that  you  were  on  friendly 
terms  with  each  other,  at  the  time  you  mention,  I  have 
every  reason  to  believe.'* 

I  was  absent  in  the  country  when  Dr.  Beach's  note,  en- 
closing his  answers  were  sent  to  my  house.  On  my  retura 
to  the  city  I  addressed  to  him  a  note  containing  the  follow- 
ing: 

*'  Your  answer  to  my  second  question,  owing  perhaps 
to  the  mode  of  expression  employed  by  me,  does  not  ap- 
pear to  me  to  present  a  full  and  just  view  of  my  behaviour 
,  to  Mr.  Jones  as  far  as  it  has  come  within  your  knowledge. 
I  presume  you  distinctly  recollect  that  prior  to  the  Con- 

-    4  •     •       * 


I 


ilj 


ir 


It 

k 
I' . 


III 


'(     26     ) 

veiitioii  in  1808,  you  never  heard  me  use  disrespeetfuT 
language  of  Mr.  Jones :  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  you 
always  heard  me  speak  of  him  in  a  friendly  manner ;  and 
tliat  fi-equently  when  an  unfavoui*able  style  of  remark  was 
used  with  respect  to  him,  I  expressed  myself  in  favoura- 
ble terms  concerning  him.  It  appears  to  me  that  a  state- 
ment of  this  kind  ftom  you  is  a  very  moderate  represen- 
tation  of  facts.  I  wish  to  obtain  these,  but  not  in  a  way 
implicating  yourself.  I  therefore  subjoin  another  ques- 
tion which,  with  the  answer  you  may  be  so  good  as  to 
furnish  me,  I  will  annex  to  the  other  questions  and  an- 
swers, or  substitute  instead  of  the  second  inquiry  and 
reply,  as  you  may  direct. 

"  Prior  to  tlie  Convention  in  the  fall  of  1808,  did  you 
ever  hear  me  use  disrespectful  language  of  Mr.  Jones ; 
'  on  the  contrary,  did  you  not  hear  me  uniformly  speak  of 
him  in  a  friemlly  manner;  and  frequently  when  an  unfa- 
vourable style  of  remark  was  used  with  respect  to  him, 
did  you  not  hear  me  express  myself  concerning  him  in 
favoui*ablc  terms  V^ 

Dr.  Beach,  the  next  day  (July  12)  transmitted  the  fol- 
lowing ;  remarking,  that  it  "  gave  him  pleasure  to  comply 
with  any  refjuest  of  mine." 

^^  With  respect  to  my  answer  to  youi*  second  question'—^ 
9  I  have  no  hesitation  in  adding,  what  you  intimate  is  your 
wish,  viz.  that,  <  prior  to  the  Convention  in  the  fall  of 
'  1808,  I*never  heai^  you  use  disrespectful  language  of  Mr. 
Jones ;  on  th*^  contrary,  I  have  heard  you  uniformly  speak 
of  him  in  a  friendly  manner:'  in  justice  to  Mr.  Jones, 
I  must  also  add,  that  prior  to  the  period  alluded  to,  I  ne- 
ver heard  him  use  disrespectful  language  respecting  you : 
on  the  contrary,  I  have  heard  him  uniformly  speak  of  you 


in  a  friendly  manner. 


As  the  above  contained  no  reply  ta  the  latter  part  of  the 
inquirj'  which  I  had  addressed  to  him,  I  immediately  sent  a 
letter  to  him,  containing  the  following  remarks. 

<*  The  latter  part  of  the  question  contained  in  my  letter 

of  yesterday,  appears  to  have  escaped  your  notice,  as  you 

make  no  reply  to  it.     The  part  to  which  I  refer  is — <  and 

^frequently  when  an  unfavourable  style  of  remark  was 

used  with  respect  to  him  (Mr.  Jones)  did  you  not  hear 

*    mc  express  myself  concerning  him  in  favourable  terms  ? 


(     2^    ) 

I  am  satisfied  your  recollection  wiil  enable  you  to  answer 
this  question  in  the  aflSirmative ;  as  you  did  in  the  state- 
ment with  which  on  a  former  occasion  you  thought  of 
furnishing  me.    I  have  frequently  defended  Mr.  Jones 

^rom  your  own  censures ;  though  this  I  do  not  wish  to 

.  appear  in  your  answer;  and  hence  the  question  I  propose 
does  not  implicate  yourself,  as  the  unfavourable  style  of 
]remark  may  have  been  used  by  others.  The  circum- 
stance however  to  which  I  wish  you  to  testify  is  a  fact 
which  I  cannot  think  you  have  forgotten,  and  to  which 
indeed  you  gave  your  testimony  in  the  statement  above 
V  alluded  to.  In  this  statement  also  you  gave,  as  I  con- 
ceive, a  move  correct  view  of  your  knowledge  of  Mr. 
Jones's  behaviour  to  me  than  that  which  is  contained  in 

.your  letter  of  this  day.  You  then  testified  that  in  one 
instance  (at  your  farm  in  the  year  1804  or  1806)  you 
heard  Mr.  Jones  defend  me  when  I  was  criminated. 
Your  present  testimony  states  that  you  heard  him  unU 

fomihj  speak  of  me  in  a  friendly  manner ;  the  same 
terms  which  you  apply  to  my  behaviour  to  him ;  and  of 
course  leading  to  the  conclusion,  that  you  had  the  same 
evidence  of  the  mutual  correctness  of  our  behaviour  to 
each  other.  This  I  presume  you  will  recollect  cannot 
have  been  the  case ;  for  you  had  very  little  intercourse 
with  Mr.  Jones ;  and  I  imagine  do  not  recollect  but  owe 
instance  in  which  you  heard  him  speak  of  me  in  a  friendly 
manner:  while  your  intercourse  with  me  was  frequent 
and  unreserved,  and  on  various  occasions  you  heard  me 
express  friendly  opinions  concerning  him.  I  only  wish  to 
ascertain  facts  on  this  subject ;  and  this  must  be  my  ex- 
cuse for  remarks  calculated  to  call  your  attention  to 
them."  . 

Tlie  following  was  the  part  of  the  inquiry  to  which  I  had 
called  Dr.  Beach's  attention — "  and  frequently  when  an  unfa- 
vourable style  of  remark  was  used  with  respectt  to  him  (Mr. 
Jones)  did  you  not  hear  me  express  myself  in  favourable 
terms  concerning  him  ?"  To  this  he  replied  in  a  note  which 
I  received  the  Monday  ensuing —  ♦ 

**  That  I  should  be  able  to  recollect  every  thing  that  hath 
passed  between  us  inafiiendly  and  unreserved  intercourse 
of  ten  or  a  dozen  years,  resj)ecting  any  part  of  Mr.  Jones's 
conduct,  you  can  scarcely  think  possible.  I  am  fuUy  per- 
suaded, however,  that  during  our  acquaintance  with  Mr. 
Jones^  especially  in  the  early  part  of  it,  something  like 


t 


It 


/- 


i..i 


I! 


(     28     ) 

^hat  is  expressed  in  the  question^  may  have  frequently 
oeeurred,  though  I  cannot  call  to  mind  the  particulars; 
it  is,  however,  certain  they  were  not  of  such  importance 
as  to  leave  any  lasting  impression  on  my  mind.'^      • 

From  respect  to  Dr.  Beach,  my  inquii4es  were  designedly 
so  mild  and  moderate,  that  had  the  answers  heen  explicit, 
they  would  not  have  furnished  me  with  the  full  means  of  de- 
fence with  which  it  was  in  his  power  to  supply  me.  I  trust 
1  shall  not  he  suspected  therefore  of  disresi)ect  to  him  when 
1  ohsei^ve,  what  I  think  must  occur  to  every  candid  mind, 
that  his  answers  are  remarkably  reserved  and  guarded. 

In  order  to  elucidate  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Beach,  it  is  there- 
fore necessary  for  me  to  remark,  that  he  frequently  expressed 
himself  in  unfavourable  terms  concerning  Mr.  Jones,  not 
only  to  me  in  "  friendly  and  unreserved  intercourse,*'  but  ^to 
others ;  and  often  complained  of  particular  acts  of  unkindness 
to  himself.  Tliis  style  of  remark  commenced  in  the  «  early 
part  of  our  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Jones,"  and  has  con- 
tinued to  the  pi-esent  day.  I  uniformly  and  warmly  defended 
}iim,  and  endeavoured  to  bring  into  view  the  good  traits  of 
iiis  character.  Injustice  to  myself  I  make  these  observa- 
tions ;  and  hot  with  the  most  remote  intention  of  implicating 
I>r.  Beach.  The  same  unfavourable  style  of  remark  con- 
cerning Mr.  Jones  was  used  by  others  as  well  as  by  him; 
and  1  haVe  unfortunately  now  reason  to  believe  that  their 
opinion  of  Mr.  Jones  was  much  more  correctthan  my  own. 

Yet  cautious  and  guarded  as  is  the  testimony,  it  still,  I 
conceive,  fully  establishes  the  fact,  that  "  in  a  friendly  and 
unreserved  intercourse  of  ten  or  a  dozen  years"  with  Dr. 
Beach,  not"  one  word  ever  escaped  my  lips  disrespectful  or 
unfriendly  to  Mr.  Jones,  but  on  the  contrary,  that  I  uni- 
formly acted  the  part  of  his  friend  and  advocate.  Is  it  pos- 
«ble  then  that  I  could  have  been  secretly  pursuing  against 
him  a  system  of  persecution  ? 

After  I  had  determined  to  apply  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Harris 
for  his  testimony,  I  deemed  it  most  respectful  and  friendly 
to  have  an  interview  with  him  on  the  subject.  Accordingly, 
in  a  conversation  with  him  of  some  lengtli,  I  called  his  at- 
tention to  the  points  on  which  I  should  wish  his  testimony ; 
and  I  found  that  his  recollection  of  all  the  material  facts 
was  in  substance  the  same  with  my  own.  I  then  mentioned, 
that,  if  he  chose,  I  would  address  to  him  a  number  of  in- 
quiries, to  which  I  would  beg  the  favour  of  a  written  reply. 
He  assented  to  this  course,  and  discovered  a  readiness  to  do 


(    39     ) 

me  justice,  which  called  forth  my  acknowledgments,  and  led 
me  to  express  to  others  my  sensibility  to  this  honourable  dis- 
position on  his  part.  In  the  afternoon  of  the  day  on  which 
this  conversation  took  place,  I  hastily  drafted  a  number  of 
questions,  and  delivered  them  to  him  personally,  after  read- 
iag  them  to  him,  explaining  their  purport,  and  assuring 
him  that  my  simple  aim  was  to  obtain  a  statement  of  the 
facts  which  were  within  his  knowledge.  He  promised  that 
in  a  day  or  two  he  would  furnish  me  with  his  replies.  On 
the  3d  instant,  he  addressed  the  following  note  to  me,  to 
which  I  returned  the  annexed  answer. 

«  Right  Rev.  Sir, 
«'  I  did  say  to  you  that  I  would  answer  the  questions  you 
proposed,  but  alter  having  given  them  an  attentive  peru- 
sal I  think  it  necessary  to  request  Bishop  Hobart  to  in- 
form me  whether,  in  his  contemplated  publication,  it  is 
his  intention,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  to  implicate 
my  character,  or  in  any  manner  injurious  to  my  reputa- 
tion to  draw  into  public  view  my  conduct  relative  to  ex- 
isting differences.  Bishop  Hobart  will  readily  perceive 
the  propriety  of  my  asking  this  information. 

"  With  respect,  I  am, 

«  Right  Rev.  Sir, 

"Yours,  &e. 

"  WM.  HARRIS. 
f^  Right  Rev.  Dr.  Hobart. 
**  July  3,  1811.'*' 

^  «  July  4f,  181i. 

«  Rev.  Sir, 

"  I  did  not  see,  until  the  evening,  your  note  of  yester- 
day,  or  1  should  have  immediately  returned  an  answer  to 
it. 

«  The  promptitude  with  which,  in  the  two  interviews 
witli  you  on  Monday,  you  expressed  your  readiness  to  an- 
swer any  inquiries  which  I  nught  address  to  you  with  a 
view  to  the  vindication  of  myself  from  the  charges  con- 
tained in  the  pamphlet  of  Mr.  Jones,  made  the  most  fa- 
vourable impression  on  my  feelings,  and  I  assured  you  of 
my  sensibility  to  this  prompt  and  honourable  determina- 
tion on  your  part  to  do  me  justice.  Your  repeated  decla- 
rations, after  1  had  read  to  you  my  inquiries,  that  you 
would  answer  them;  the  undisguised  manner  in  which  at 
these  interviews,  as  indeed  in  all  former  ones,  I  con- 
versed with  you ;  the  assurance  which  I  gave  you  that  the 


M 


III.:!: 

i'lir 


:|fe  i 


'  ( 


1111 


M 


i:: 


(    ao    ) 

ittquiiues  were  hastily  drafted,  without  any  artful  or  si- 
nister design,  but  with  the  single  one  of  Obtaining  from 
you  a  statement  of  faets  necessaiy  to  my  vindication ;  all 
these  consi<lei*ations,  I  should  have  supposed,  would  have 
prevented  you  from  hesitating  a  moment  as  to  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  engagement  which  you  had  thus  promptly  and 

'   honourably  made, 

*<  You  demand  of  mo  evidently  as  a  condition  of  your 
reply  to  my  questions,  that  I  should  inform  you  whether 
it  is  my  intention,  <  either  directly  or  indirectly,  to  im- 
plicate your  character,  or  in  any  manner  injurious  to  your 
reputation,  to  draw  into  public  view  your  conduct  relative 
to  existing  diflerences.'  So  far  as  you  suppose  from  per- 
^•eiving  the  propriety  of  your  asking  this  information,  I 
juust  think  it  will  occur  to  you,  on  reflection,  that  this  is  | 
information  which  you  have  no  right  to  claim,  and  that  it  '^ 
vould  be  honourable  neither  to  you  nor  to  myself  to 
l^nt  it*  You  have  certainly  a  right  to  demand,  pre- 
viously  to  answering  my  inquiries,  whether  your  answers 
are  to  be  employed  to  your  disadvautage ;  but  the  general 
demand,  whether  ni^- contemplated  publication  is  in  any 
way,  cither  directly  or  indii-ectly,  to  implicate  you,. is 
wholly  different,  and  in  no  respect  involves  the  propriety 
of  your  giving  me  the  information  which  I  re^juest.  Were 
I  to  satisfy  you,  as  a  previous  condition  exacted  by  you 
of  your  answering  my  questions,  that  it  is  not  my  in- 
tention, <  in  any  manner  injurious  to  your  reputation,  to 
draw  into  public  view  your  conduct  relative  to  existing 
differences ;'  it  would  imply  on  your  part  an  apprehen- 
sion that  your  conduct  would  not  bear  investigation, 
and  that,  therefore,  you  would  make  an  act  of  justice  to 

.  me  a  pledge  of  your  being  skreened  from  censure ;  and 
t«i  myparU  it  might  imply  a  dishonourable  relinquishment 
of  some  of  the  means  of  my  own  vindication,  in  order  to 
obtain  from  you  as  a  favour  what  justice  would  enable 
file  to  demand  as. a  right. 

^(  It  is  very  probable  that  the  ansirers  which  I  should 

-  return  to  your  inquiry  would  be  perfectly  satisfiactory  to 
you.  But  it  really  appears  to  me  that  the  only  point  on 
which  you  can,  consistent  with  right  and  with  our  mutual 
honour,  requii^  satisfaction  is,  whether  it  is  my  intention 
to  employ  any  information  which  you  give  me,  directly  or 
indirectlyrto  your  disadvantage.  I  now  declare  that  such 
is  not  and  never  was  my  intention,  and  pledge  myself 
that  no  such  use  shall  be  made  of  your  replies  to  my 
questions.  v  "*j. 


(  »i  ) 

«« I  shall  hope  for  the  favour  of  a  very  early  answer. 

As  you  have  the  first  and  only  draft  of  my  questions,  I 

must  beg  you  to  return  it  to  me,  as  it  is  my  intentioh  to 

print  it  entire.    I  deem  it  candid  to  state,  that  I  may  think 

it  expedient  to  publish  ^his  correspondence,   that  the 

readers  of  my  defence  may  thus  be  enabled  to  judge  with 

what  views  on  my  part  your  testimony  was  requested; 

and  under  w  hat  impressions  on  yours  it  was  withheld>  or 

given  in  whole  or  in  part. 

•^  <^  I  am.  Rev.  Sir,  respectfully  yours,* 

"J.  H.  HOBART* 
«  Rev.  Mr.  Harris.'^ 

In  a  few  days  afterwards  I  received  a  note,  enclosing  xe- 
plies  to  all  my  inquiries.  As  these  replies  did  not  appeal  ta 
me  to  accord  entirely  with  the  testimony  as  to  the  same 
points  which  he  gave  to  me  in  our  conversation  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  with  my  recollection  of  facts,  I  waited  upon  him, 
and  stated  these  impressions.  I  found  that  my  inquiries  and 
his  answers,  previously  to  their  being  sent  to  me,  had  been 
exhibited  to  Mr.  Jones;  at  which  I  expressed  my  surprise, 
observing  to  him,  that  he  had  not  consulted  me  on  a  state- 
ment affecting  myself  with  which  he  furnished  Mr.  Jones, 
and  which  appears  in  the  «  Appeal.*'  He  i:emarked,  that 
Mr.  Jones  did  not  like  his  answers,  that  I  did  not  like  them, 
and  that  he  did  not  know  how  to  please  us  both.  I  replied,, 
that  I  had  expressed  no  dislike  to  his  answers ;  my  only 
wish  was  that  they  should  strictly  accord  with  his  recollec- 
tion of  facts ;  and  that  I  was  confident  he  would  think,  that 
what  might  be  the  sentiments  of  either  Mf.  Jones  or  myself 
in  regard  to  his  testimony  ought  to  be  no  consideration  with 
him ;  his  only  object  should  be  to  state  the  truth,  regardless 
of  consequences.  Some  few  alterations  were  made  by  him 
in  his  testimony. 

I  haVe  premised  these  circumstances,  in  order  to  furnish 
you  with  an  idea  of  the  impressions  under  which  Mr.  Harri* 
delivered  his  testimony,  and  to  enable  you  to  determine  how 
far  it  is  probable  that  it  does  full  justice  to  myself.  I  havfr 
no  wish  to  be  guilty  of  direspect  to  Mr.  Harris,  who  really 
appeared  desirous  to  act  conscientiously.  In  the  course  of 
this  address  I  shall  publish,  in  its  proper  place,  the  whole 
of  his  testimony,  as  originally  given,  and  as  altered  after- 
wards.   At  present  I  subjoin  the  following  extracts  from  it. 

(imsL  "  Prior  to  the  Convention  in  the  fall  i^  180^,  did 
you  at  any  time  hear  me  speak  disrespectfully  of  the  Rev. 


1 


ili'.  I 


h 


(   *e   ) 

Mr.  Jones ;  or  did  you  discover  in  me  any  hostile  dispo  ^tion^ 
qr  acts  towards  him?  On  the  contrary,  as  far  as  came 
within  your  knowledge,  did  not  my  behaviour  indicate  the 
.  most  friendly  sentiments  to  him  ?" 

Ans. "  I  had  fi*equently  heard  you  speak  of  Mr.  Jones  as 
a  man  of  great  worth.  I  recollect  in  particular  that  you 
frequently  commended  him  for  the  correctness  of  his  piin- 
ciples,  for  his  great  sincerity,  his  strict  regard  to  truth, 
and  also  for  his  zeal  and  faithfulness  in  the  discharge  of 
his  professional  duties.  I  must  also  do  Mr.  Jones  the 
justice  to  say,  that  he  has  frequently  spoken  to  me  of  you 
in  terms  of  the  highest  commendation.  I  have  no  recol- 
-^  lection  of  any  hostile  acts  or  dispositions  that  you  disco- 
vered towards  him,  and  I  know  of  none  that  Mr.  Jones 
discovered  towards  you  previous  to  the  period  alluded  to, 
unless  the  letter  addressed  to  Mr.  Prentice  be  considered 
in  that  light." 

^uest,  <*  While  such  was  my  behaviour  to  Mr.  Jones,  did 
not  he  frequently  complain  to  you  that  my  dispositions  were 
uitfriendly  to  him;  and  did  you  not  express  your  persua- 
sion to  him  that  his  views  of  me  were  erroneous  ?" 

Jins.  "  In  some  instances  I  believe  I  did  say  that  Mr.. 
Jones's  views  of  you  were  erroneous,  and  I  cannot  deny 
that  I  then  thought  them  to  be  so ;  but  I  am  now  convinced 
that  he  had  better  grounds  for  his  opinions  than  I  had  then 
imagined.  He  did  at  times,  but  I  cannot  precisely  recol- 
lect when,  speak  to  me  of  your  unfriendly  dispositions 
towards  him.'' 

^(uest.  "  Was  I  not  during  this  period  in  habits  of  fre- 
quent,  affectionate,  and  confidential  intercourse  with  you  ? 

The  original  answer  of  Mr.  Harris  to  this  third  question 
tvas  as  follows : 

<<Ihad  at  this  time  frequent  and  confidential  inter- 
course both  with  yourself  and  Mr.  Jones.  I  considered 
you  both  as  friends^  and  I  meant  to  act  the  part  of  a 
friend  to  both.  You  did  me  the  justice  to  say,  in  the  hear- 
ing of  Mr.  Lyell,  that  I  had  done  every  thing  in  my  power 
to  keep  peace  betw  een  you.  This  you  said  on  the  evening 
pi*evious  to  the  last  fall  Convention.'* 

The  answer,  as  corrected  by  him  stands  thus: 

<«  I  had  at  this  time  frequent,  and  confidential,  and  al- 
feetionate  intercourse  both  with  yourself  and  Mr.  Jones." 


( 


t>0 


^ 
J 


My  object  in  the  last  inquiry  was  to  obtain  a  state- 
ment from  Mr.  Han  is  of  what  was  undoubtedly  the  fact, 
that  during  the  whole  of  this  period  I  was  his*  most  inti- 
mate and  confidenfial  friend;  and  lie  acknowledged  to  me. 
though  he  expressed  his  reluctance  at  its  appearing  in  his  state- 
inent,  as  it  might  hurt  the  feelings  of  Mr.  Jones,  that  his  inter- 
course with  me  was  much  more  affectionate  and  confidential 
than  with  this  gentleman.  And  the  use  which  I  w  ould  make 
of  this  declaration  is,  that  if  according  to  Mr.  Harris's  state- 
ment, cautious  as  it  is,  my  language  to  him  with  whom  I 
never  felt  any  reserve,  coneerniug  Mr.  Jones,  was  uniformly 
that  not  only  of  cold  stppiobation,  but  even  of  warm  pane- 
gyric, it  affords  the  strongest  pfesusiption^that .  Ei^sefiti. 
ments  could  not  have  been  of  tiie  hostile  nature  attributed 
to  me  by  this  gentleman.  Mr.  Harris  indeed  has  sometimes 
expressed  his  surprise  at  the  change  in  my  sentiments  w  ith 
respect  to  my  colleague.  But  surely  when  I  aset^rtained 
that  wliile  I  was  thus  singular  among  my  bretlu'cn  in  my 
high  encomiums  of  Mr.  Jones,  he  was  secretly  deiiouncing 
me,  as  the  subsequent  statements  will  evince,  in  terms  tlie 
most  severe  and  opprobrious,  there  was  cause  for  this  change 
of  opinion.  I  can  truly  say,  that  the  period  in  which  the 
resistless  evidence  of  facts  forced  contiary  sentiments  on 
my  mind,  Avas  among  the  most  painful  of  those  through 
which  it  has  been  recently  my  lot  to  pass. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Moore,  to  wlioin  I  addressed  some  inqui- 
ries, readily  answered  thqui;  prefacing  his  reply  with  the 
dex'laration^that  "  to  the  questions  offered  to  his  consider- 
ation, lie  should  not  have  hesitated  to  reply  without  reserve^ 
although  I  had  omitted  the  assurance,  *  that  1  have  no  in- 
tention to  implicate  him  in  his  answers,  and  pledge  myself 
that  they  shall  not  he  employed  to  his  disadvantage."  The 
first  question  and  answer  here  follow;  the  rest  shall  be 
hereafter  inserted. 

"  ^msL  1.  Until  some  short  time  after  the  Genei'al  Con- 
vention at  Baltimore,  in  1808,  were  we  not  on  terms  of 
friendly  inteiH-ourse ;  and  during  that  period,  when,  ac- 
cording to  my  recollcetiom  there  was  no  particular  inti- 
macy between  yourself  and  Mr.  Jones,  did  I  ever  attempt 
to  prejudice  your  mind  against  liiin,  or  speak  of  him  in 
your  liearing  in  other  than  respectful  and  affectionate 
terms;  or  did  my  conduct  give  you  any  reason  taconiider 
that  my  views  in  respect  to  him,  were  unfriendlv  ov  hos- 
tile?" " 

B 


I) 


JM 


|r 


W 

i'  ! 


i! 


(  5i  ) 

•<  .ilns^  As  there  was  no  particular  intimJicy  between  Mr. 
Jones  and  myself  at  that  period,  I  do  not  recollect  that 
our  conversation  ever  embraced  that  gentleman  or  his 
concerns,  co>nsequently  you  could  not  have  dropped  any 
expression  of  an  unfriendly  op  hostile  nature  respecting 

him." 

Thus  then  it  appears,  that  during  a  period  when  Dr. 
Moore  frequently  made  my  house  his  home ;  when,  as  he 
was  unacquainted  with  Mr.  Jones,  it  would  have  been  na- 
tural for  him  to  receive  impressions  concerning  this  gentle- 
man from  myself;  and  when  it  would  have  been  easy  for 
me  te^inti'oducea-eQnversation  relative  to  Mr.  Jones,  with 
a  view  to  prejudice  Dr.  Moore  against  him,  "  not  one  ex- 
pression of  an  unfriendly  or  hostile  nature  respecting  him 
dropped  from  me."     I  distinctly  recollect,  though  the  fact 
has  escaped  Dr.  Moore's  recollection,  that  more  than  once 
we  conversed  of  Mr.  Jones,  and  my  language  was  that  of 
regard  and  friendship. 

From  the  foregoing  testimony,  I  trust,  Gentlemen,  I  have 
established  my  assertion,  that  my  uniform  conduct  to  Mr. 
Jonc^,  prior  to  the  autumn  of  1808,  was  that  of  disinter- 
ested and  zealous  friendshi]) ;  and  since  that  period,  of  ten- 
derness and  forbeai-ance.  This  fact  will  still  further  appear 
from  the  subsequent  statements,  which  will  also  exhibit  the 
system  of  inveterate  hostility  which  he  was  prosecuting  to- 
wards me,  at  a  time  when  I  was  his  active  advocate  and 

friend.  »  ,    -r*      t*«    t*_ 

Before  I  exhibit  to  you  the  statement  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Pren- 
tice of  Athens,  I  must  beg  leave  to  observe,  that  the  cha- 
racter of  this  gentleman  precludes  the  suspicion  of  his  being 
influenced  by  other  than  the  most  honourable  views ;  that  in 
the  part  which  he  has  acted,  he  has  uniformly  displayed  the 
most  lively  solicitude  to  reconcile  his  friendship  for  Mr. 
Jones  with  justice  to  me  and  duty  to  the  Church;  and  that 
so  far  from  having  been  officious  in  the  introduction  of  hii 
testimony,  he  always  gave  it  with  considerable  reluctance ; 
and  only  very  recendy  exliibited  to  me,  at  my  particular  re 
quest,  some  of  its  most  important  details. 

«  I'his  may  certify,  that  some  time  in  the  summer  or 

falj  of  1808,  tlie  Rev.  Mr.  Jones  called  on  me  at  Athens, 

on  his  way  up  the  country,  and  after  spending  some  days, 

.  and  preaching  in  the  churches  in  the  neighbourhood,  1 

accompanied  him  to  Albany.    During  the  nde,  a  letter 


(    3^    ) 

which  Mr.  Jones  had  written  shortly  previous^  and  which 
Is  now  published  in  his  ^^  Appeal,"  was  mentioned,  and 
particularly  that  part  of  it  which  seemed  to  impeach  the 
character  of  Dr.  Hobart.  Mr.  Jones  took  occasion,  while 
on  this  subject,  to  enlarge  on  what  he  deemed  the  imper- 
fections and  vices  of  Dr.  Hobart ;  and  his  remarks  were 
calculated  to  induce  a  belief  that  Dr.  H.  was  a  hasty^ 
ambitious,  and  ill-bred  man,  not  worthy  of  the  ministe- 
lial  character,  and  by  no  means  deserving  of  the  confidence 
of  his  brethren.  Connecting  Mr.  Jones's  conversation 
with  the  remarks  in  his  letter  of  a  prior  date,  strong  sus- 
picions were  excited  that  Dr.  Hobart  had  either  embez- 
zled the  monies  of  a  certain  society,  with  the  application 
of  which  he  had  been  intrusted,  or  had  purchased  there- 
with, for  distribution,  his  own  controversial  writings.  This 
last  impression  was  never  entirely  removed  until  the  ap- 
pearing of  Mr.  Jones's  "  Appeal,"  in  which  a  different 
statement  was  given.  . 

"  At  the  time  above  alluded  to,  much  censure  was  be- 
stowed on  Dr.  Hobart,  for  the  opposition  which  he  had 
made  to  the  wishes  of  a  Mr.  George  Macklin,  and  for 
his  backwardness  in  accrediting  Mr.  Macklin's  papers  and 
representations.  Dr.  Hobart's  conduct  was  imputed  to 
an  unwarrantable  suspiciousness  and  jealousy  of  temper, 
f  lest  any  man  should  be  admitted  a  Clergyman  in  this 
State,  who  would  not  be  his  humble  servant.' 

"  Other  accusations  were  made  against  Dr.  Hobart, 
relative  to  the  discharge  of  his  office  as  a  member  of  the 
Standing  Committee,  and  other  committees ;  but  as  they 
related  to  transactions  not  very  important,  and  already 
past,  they  are  not  distinctly  recollected. 

"  JOSEPH  PRENTICE. 

«  MtitjiSy  July  2,  1811." 

In  the  letter  from  Mr.  Prentice,  enclosing  this  statement. 
he  repeats  certain  parts  of  it.  "  During*  our  ride  to  Albany 
almost  his  (Mr.  Jones's)  whole  conversation  was  calculated  to 
impress  me  with  the  belief,  that  you  were  a  hasty,  ambitious, 
and  ill-bred  man ;  not  wortliy  of  tlie  ministerial  character, 
and  unworthy  of  the  confidence  of  your  brethren." 

The  Mr.  Macklin  named  in  the  above  statement  is  the  Sii- 
George  Augustus  Macklin,  who  afterwards  distinguished 
liimself  by  an  account,  which  he  inserted  in  the  papers,  of  a 
fictitious  duel,  in  defence  of  the  character  of  the  Prince  of 
Wales ;  and  who,  it  appears  from  the  English  papers,  has  sinee 
been  indict^  f^r  theft.     He  first  introduced  hirapelf  to  me ; 


liili' 


I* 

lii 


I 


ri^ 


mi 


(     36     ) 

and  satisfied  at  the  time  that  he  was  an  impostor,  I  was  averse 
to  his  being  received  as  a  Clergyman  among  us.  After  it  was 
found  that  I  was  opposed  to  him,  Mr,  Jones  zealously  patron- 
ized him.  The  event  has  shown  how  far  my  "  suspicious- 
ness and  jealousy"  were  "  unwarrantable.'* 

The  letter  referred  to  in  the  above  statement  is  that  which 
appears  in  the  20th  and  31st  pages  of  Mr.  Jones's  "  Appeal." 
The  part  which  relates  to  myself  is  the  following. 

Extract  cf  a  Letter  from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jones  to  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Prenticey  dated  Xew-Yorky  Aug.  9,  1808. 

*^  When  I  last  wrote  to  you,  and  recommended  the  dis- 
semination of  Fowler's  Exposition  of  the  Liturgy,  I  was 
not  acquainted  with  the  intention  of  the  Corporation  of 
Trinity  Cliurch  to  purchase  a  parcel  to  be  distributed 
among  the  parishes.     I  rejoice  at  this  an^angement,  and 
think  that  it  will  be  productive  of  good.    The  disseminat- 
ing of  such  books,  adapted  to  the  capacity  and  to  the  in- 
structing of  plain  readers,  will  do  more  good  than  all  the 
controversial  writings  that  ambition  and  self-gratulation 
can  multiply.     It  was  my  expectation  to  be  able  to  for- 
ward you  before  this,  some  parcels  of  Jones's  Churchman's 
Catechism,   and  Wall's  small  tract   on  infant  baptism. 
We  had  made  an  appropriation  for  this  purpose,  and  ap- 
pointed  Dr.  Hobart  to  get  them  printed.     But  I  have 
waited  in  constant  expectation  of  seeing  them  come  out ; 
though  have  heard  nothing  of  them  since ;  till  the  other 
day  I  inquired  of  the  printer,  and  found  that  Mr.  Hobart 
had  applied  the  money  another  way,  as  suited  his  own 
wishes  and  views.     This,  1  am  sorry  to  say  to  you,  is  the 
way  in   which   too  much  of  the  public  business  of  the 
Church  is  transacted.    It  is  time  that  some  inquiry  should 
he  made."  ' 

On  the  subject  of  the  above  letter,  the  following  state- 
ment from  Mr.  Ritter,  a  leading  gentleman  in  the  congre- 
gation at  Athens,  has  been  forwarded  to  me. 

"  This  may  certify,  that  previous  to  the  settlement  of 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Prentice  in  this  place,  I  was  in  the  habit  of 
corresponding  with  the  Rev.  Cave  Jones ;  that  after  the 
settlement  of  Mr.  Prentice  this  correspondence  continued, 
embracing  little  else  than  what  related  to  the  interests  of 
this  particular  parish.  My  letters  from  Mr.  Jones  were 
generally  seen  by  Mr.  Prentice,-  as  they  contained  nothini; 


(37     ) 

of  a  private  or  confidential  nature.  I  also  frequently  read 
letters  addressed  by  Mr.  Jones  to  Mr.  Prentice,  in  none  of 
which  did  I  ever  see  any  thing  of  a  private  or  personal  na- 
ture—they being  wholly  occupied  by  inquiries,  councils, 
and  directions  concerning  our  Church — until  about  Au- 
gust, 1808,  when  I  saw  one  which  was  brought  by  my  bro- 
ther Peter  Ritter,  in  which  are  some  remarks  on  the  con- 
duct and  views  of  Dr.  Hobart.     This  letter  was  not  shown 
me  by  Mr.  Prentice,  but  I  believe  accident  brought  it  un- 
der my  view.  I  felt  myself  at  liberty  to  peruse  it  from  the 
nature  of  the  correspondence  which  I  knew  had  been  car- 
ried on  (relating  to  the  concerns  of  our  Church)  and  from 
the  intimacy  which  subsisted  between  Mr.  Prentice  and 
myself.     Some  things  contained  in  that  letter  were  fre- 
quently made  the  subject  of  conversation  between  my  bro- 
ther and  myself  during  liis  stay  in  the  country— ^rticu- 
larly  as  to  what  related  about  Dr.  Hobart;  I  observed  they 
were  serious  charges,  and  Dr.  Hobart  ought  to  be  made 
acquainted  with  them.    And  some  remarks  which  I  have 
heard  arc  reported  to  have  been  made  by  me  on  perusing 
that  letter,  as  near  as  I  recollect  are  correct;  they  were 
insensibly  drawn  forth  at  seeing  what  I  could  not  believe 
to  be  true. 

"  HENRY  RITTER. 

^^AthenSf  July  2,  1811." 

The  above  certificate  shows  how  unfounded  is  the  asser- 
tion of  Mr.  Jones')^  ^<  that  Mr.  I.yell  was  the  instrument  for 
bringing  the  matter  to  light."  Mr.  Lyell  was  never  at  Athens 
mtil  long  after  I  was  informed  that  this  letter  was  written 
)y  Mr.  Jones ;  nor  did  Mr.  Lyell  ever  see  the  original  letter, 
)r  a  copy  of  it,  or  any  part  of  it,  until  he  saw  it  printed  in 
\Ir.  Jones's  "  Appeal."  I  must  also  declare,  in  justice  to 
VIr.  Lyell,  that  the  information  which  I  received  relative  to 
his  letter  was  not  from  him;  and  to  free  Mr.  Prentice  from 
the  suspicion  of  furnishing  me  with  a  copy  of  it,  I  ought  also 
to  state,  that  though  I  was  acquainted  with  the  principal  part 
^f  its  contents,  I  never  saw  the  letter  or  a  copy  of  it,  or  of  any 
lart  of  it ;  and  I  read  it,  for  the  first  time,  in  Mr.  Jones's 
"  Appeal." 

The  expressions  which  Mr.  Ritter  acknowledges  that  he 
lade  on  iierusing  that  letter,  were  those  of  the  strongest 
indignation,  at  what  he  considered  a  base  attempt  of  Mr. 
pones  secretly  to  injure  my  character.     They  were  sen- 

*  Appeal,  p.  22. 


■'   # 


-i! 


II 


Ml 


«.i 


<  99  ; 

timeiit!»  wliieli  I  think  every  honest  man  would  feel  iu 
such  circumstances ;  but  the  expression  of  them  I  always 
considered  as  highly  honourable  to  Mr.  Ritter;  because  he 
had  been  the  <^  particular  friend  of  Mr.  Jones  from  early 
youth  ;'*  while,  as  I  believe,  he  knew  me  only  from  general 
character.  He  certainly  vfus  not  in  habics  of  intimacy  with 
me. 

In  the  beginning  of  August,  this  letter  to  Mr.  Prentice, 
'*  defamatory  of  me,"  was  written  by  Mr.  Jones.  From  the 
conclusion  of  this  letter,  as  Mr.  Jones  observes,*  <<  it  ap- 
pears he  contemplated  a  little  tour  up  the  country ;  where 
he  had  never  been,  though  born  in  the  state."  And  ^*  the 
beginning  of  the  ensuing  month,"  (September,  1808,)  "  an 
opportunity  offered,  of  which  he  gladly  availed  himself." 
During  this  journey,  the  conversation  took  place  with  Mr. 
Prentice,  some  of  the  particulars  of  which  are  detailed  in 
the  preceding  statement  of  this  gentle :nan.  And  during  the 
same  journey,  another  conversation  with  n*S;>ect  to  myself 
took  place,  the  particulars  of  which  are  exhibited  in  the 
following  statement  The  Rev.  Mr.  Bulkley  i^  now  Rector 
of  St  George's  Church,  Flushing. 

"  Flushing,  July  1,  1811. 
**  Some  little  time  previous  to  the  Convention  of  1808, 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Jones  paid  me  a' visit  at  PoUghkeepsie,  of  the 
Church  in  which  place  I  was  then  Rectop-— the  conver- 
sation turned  iipon  Dr.  Hobart     He  inquired  of  me  whe- 
ther I  had  received  certain  religious  tracts.    At  first  I 
.  thought  I  hdd  not  received  them,  and  told  him  so.     He 
.  then  said  that  it  was  Dr.  Hobart's  duty  to  send  them ;  and 
seemed  inclined  to  blame  Dr.  Hobart  for  this  deficiency 
of  duty   as   Secretary  of  the   Convention.    Afterwards, 
.  upon  the  name  of  the  tracts  being  mentioned,  I  recol- 
lected that  they  had  been  sent.     He  also  said  that  Dr. 
llolmrt  was  pursuing  a  system  of  favouritism,  particularly 
'  in  respect  to  a  certain  Clergyman  whom  he  was  endea- 
.  vouring  to  get  into  Trinity  Church.     And  I  also  distinctly 
recttllect  his  asserting  that  Dr.  Hobart  had  drawn  up  a 
number  of  charges  against  the  Rev.  Mr.  Feltus,  which  he 
(Mr.  Jones)  was  persuaded  Dr.  Hobart  could  not  substan- 
tiate.    Besides  these  particulars,  the  whole  course  of  Mr. 
Jones's  observations  and  remarks,   when  Dr.  Hobail's 
name  was  introduced,  impressed  me  with  a  belief,  that 
he  entertained  an  unfavourable  opinion  of  Dr.  Hobart  and 


C     59     ) 

his  manner  of  proceeding ;  and  the  persuasion  arose  in 
my  mind  that  this  was  owing  to  Mr.  Jones's  envy  and  jea- 
lousy of  Dr.  Hobart 

"  The  meeting  of  the  Convention  soon  took  place.  I 
came  down  to  New-York,  and  put  up  at  Dr.  Hobart^s 
house.  I  hinted  to  Mr.  How,  who  was  there  also,  tho 
observations  of  Mr.  Jones  respecting  Dr.  Hobart  Mr. 
How  thought  that  in  justice  to  Dr.  Hobart,  he  ought  to  bft 
made  acquainted  with  them.  I  at  first  declined ;  but  af- 
terwards consented,  and  he  communicated  them.  Dr. 
Hobart  soon,  I  remember,  came  to  me  with  surprise  and 
i^g^et,  that  Mr.  Jones  should  manifest  such  a  disposition, 
and  hold  such  language  towards  him,  as  he  was  consci- 
ous  of  never  having  intentionally  given  him  cause  for  it. 
He  manifested  a  willingness  and  disposition  to  pacify  and 
ease  Mr.  Jones's  feelings ;  and  even  talked  strongly  of  de- 
clining a  reelection  to  the  office  of  Secretary  of  the  Con- 
vention, and  of  endeavouring  to  have  Mr.  Jones  elected, 
in  order  to  soothe  him  if  possible.  Previous  to  this  I  ne- 
ver heard  Dr.  Hobart  speak  of  Mr.  Jones  otherwise  than 
in  respectful  terms  ;  and  even  since  that  time,  I  have  ne- 
ver heard  him  speak  in  any  way  that  manifested  a  dispo- 
sition to  injure  Mr.  Jones  in  any  manner  whatever;  but  I 
have  often  heard  Dr.  Hobart  lament  the  circumstance  of 
Mr.  Jones's  feelings  towards  him,  and  complain  of  the 
cruelty  of  his  conduct  in  consequence  thereof." 

«  BAR/ILLAI  BULKLEY." 

It  would  appear  as  if  on  this  journey  Mr.  Jones  omitted 
no  opportunity  of  displaying  an  hostility  to  me,  wliich  was 
as  wholly  unsuspected  as  it  was  unmerited  by  me.  It  was 
certainly  an  object  with  him,  if  not  to  form  a  combination  for 
the  purpose,  at  least  to  sound  tlie  Clergy  on  the  subject  of 
turning  me  out  of  office ;  and  to  put  in  circulation  suspicions 
against  me,  which  would  ultimately  lead  to  this  issue.  And 
indeed,  if  the  Clergy  had  believed  his  representations,  I 
was  "  utterly  unworthy  of  their  confidence,"  it  was  their 
duty  to  disgrace  me.  That  I  do  not  here  indulge  conjec- 
ture, is  evident  from  Mr,  Jones's  own  statement  of  his  eon- 
f ersation  with  Mr.  Prentice.* 

**  On  the  road  he  (Mr.  Prentice)  observed  in  conversa- 
tion, that  he  had  learned  with  regret,  from  a  gentieman 
in  the  neighbourhood,  that  there  was  a  system  of  favour- 


I     '■ 


ill 


y 


10     ) 


4 


m 


1'  I 


itism  puiMied  iu  the  city.     I  remarked,  that  it  was  to  he 
lamented  that  such  was  too  much  the  case.    And  that,  on 
the  other  hand,  there  was  too  much  of  a  system  of  denun- 
ciation.    Of  this  I  mentioned  as  instances  the  opposition 
made  to  Dr.  Moore  and  Mr.  Feltus.    As  a  consequence 
of  these  measures  I  remarked,  that  much  uneasiness  was 
.    created  in  the  minds  of  the  Clergy,  and  that  some  hegan 
.    to  think  it  was  time  to  endeavour  to  put  a  stop  to  this  sys- 
.    iesRf  and  hsid  thoughts  of  endeavouring  to  turn  out  Dj% 
Hohsat  from  the.  office  of  Secretary,  which  gave  him  a 
great  <^portunity  of  promoting  his  private  views.     Mr. 
.    Prentice,  as  far  as  I  recollect,  expressed  his  disapproba- 
-    tion  (tf  the  measures  mentioned,  and  acquiesced  in  the 
propriety  of  the  step  which  was  said  to  be  likely  to  be 
taken." 

^  If  the  above  facts  stated  by  Mr.  Jones,  and  his  acknow- 
ledgment that .«  indiviiluals  did  talk  among  themselves  on 
the  propriety  of  such  a  measure,"^  turning  me  out  of  the 
office  of  Secretary,  lie  compared  with  the  remarks  which  he 
made  to  Mr.  Bulkley  relative  to  my  "  deficiency  of  duty'- 
in  the  Jiffice,  and  with  the^fact  which  will  not  be  denied,  that 
he  anasome  others  did  vote  against  me  at  that  Convention; 
I  think  the  evidence  will  appear  pretty  strong  that  a  plan  or 
eoiuMnation  was  formed  against  me.  But  I  will  not  dispute 
about  words.  Certainly,  the  above  facts,  if  not  indicative 
of  a  "  plan"  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Jones,  prove  that  he 
thought  I  *^  ought  to  be  turned  out  of  office,"  and  that  he 
wished  others  to  think  so  too,  by  giving  them  the  most  inju- 
noiis  representations  .of  me. 

Let  me  not  be  misunderstood.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  dis- 
pute the  right  of  the  Convention  to  eiOi?cise  unrestrained  the 
power  of  election ;  or  to  suppose  that  any  individual  with- 
holding his  sufiVage  from  another  is  in  itself  cause  of  oifencc. 
But  tliat  Mr.  Jones  should  have  accompanied  his  declaration, 
that  he  and  others  thought  I  ought  to  be  turned  out  of  office, 
with  representations  of  me  calculated  to  destroy  my  reputa- 
tion, and  to  induce  the  Clergy-  to  condemn  my  character  and 
conduct,  to  "  put  a  stop  to  the  ^ysttm  of  favouritism  aid 
daumemtion  wMth  I  ivas  purming,^^  by  withholding  from  me 
their  suffrage ;  that  he  should  have  thus  acted,  without  ever 
having  lisped  a  word  to  me  that  I  no  longer  enjoyed  that 
<«  affection"  which  I  supposed  he  still  cherislied  for  me  in 
undiminished  force  5  without  aYOwjng  an  honourable  oppo^i 

*  Appeal,  p.  C8. 


(     41     ) 

iion  to  wiiat  he  conceived  my  unjustifiable  and  dahgerouji 
conduct ;  that  he  shouhl  have  acted  thus  while  I  was  his 
unsuspecting  friend  and  advocate,  appears  to  me,  I  am  Con- 
strained to  say,  an  astonisliing  dereliction  of  all  the  dietates 
of  justice,  generosity,  and  candour. 

That  there  wi:s  an  attempt  to  turn  mc  out  of  office,  and 
thus  to  fix  upon  me  a  stigma  of  disgrace,  I  have  further  evi- 
dence.   I  perfectly  recollect  the  time,  the  pliu^,  and  the  sub- 
stance of  a  conversation  with  the  Rev.  Dr.  Moore  on  this  very 
point.    It  took  place  on  the  evening  of  tlie  last  day  of  the 
Convention,  or  the  one  succeeding,  in  1808,  during  a  walk  be- 
fore Mr.  Lyell's  house  in  Warren-street,  where  Dr.  Moore 
lodged.    He  then  stated  to  me,  that  it  was  his  intention,  and 
that  of  some  others,  to  turn  me  out  of  office ;  that  they  had 
no  idea  of  succeeding,  but  thought  they  might  occasion  me 
some  moi'tification;  but  that  he  had  spoken  to  a  friend  of  his 
immediately  before  the  Convention,  and  that  they  had  con-, 
eluded  to  use  no  means  to  influence  others,  but  only  to  vote' 
against  me  themselves.     I  was  not  displeased  with  the  can- 
dour of  Dr.  Moore ;  and  we  conversed  on  this  occasion,  as 
we  had  done  on  others,  relative  to  many  delicate  points,  with 
mutual  frankness  and  good  humour. 

The  following  certificate  frem  Mr.  Lyell  further  corrobo- 
rates this  point. 

« I  hereby  certify,  that  from  several  conversations  held 
with  the  Rev.  Dr.  Moore,  in  the  summer  of  1808,  I  had 
every  reason  to  believe  that  an  attempt  would  be  made,  at 
the  ensuing  convention,  to  remove  Dr.  Hobart  from  office^ 
and  that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jones  would  aid  in  the  business. 
And  I  do  further  certify,  that  I  understood  Dr.  Moore  in 
these  conversations,  as  wishing  to  engage  my  aid  also. 

"THO.  LYELL." 

The  fact  is,  however,  placed  beyond  all  cavil  by  the  fol- 
lowing statement.  Mr.  Read  is  the  Clergyman  of  Pough- 
keepsie. 

"  This  may  certify,  that  on  Friday,  May  11,  ISll,  I 
(tailed  on  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jones,  in  company  with  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Prentice,  when  a  conversation  took  place  relative  to 
some  things  contained  in  a  pamphlet,  entitled  « A  Solemn 
Appeal  to  the  Chureh,'  &c.  In  this  conversation  Mr. 
Jones  admitted  that  he  had,  on  some  former  occasion, 
^Id  Mi,\  Prentice  thid  he  (Mr.  Jone«),  Dr.  R  C.  Moore,  the 
Key.  Mr.  Feltus,  and  the  Rer.  Mr.  Harris^  •  hud  talked 

6 


.J] 

4 


!  '' 


il 


i) 


.1 


(  ^  ) 

together  on  the  subject  of  turning  Dr.  Hobart  out  of  the 
office  of  Secretary  to  the  Convention,  and  that  thej  had 
determined  not  to  vote  for  Dr.  Hobart ;  but  that  the  three 
former  gentlemen  had  determined  to  vote  for  Mr.  Harris.* 
«*  Mr.  Prentice  stated  to  Mr.  Jones,  that  his  pamphlet 
was  incorrect  in  representing  him  (Mr.  Frentice)  as  com- 
mencing  the  conversation  relative  to  Dr.  Hobart,  and  as 
conclu£ng  with  Mr.  Jones,  from  a  mutual  comparison  of 
ideas,  that  Dr.  Hobart  ought  to  be  turned  out  of  the  offic© 
of  Secretary ;  whereas  Mr.  Jones  commenced  the  conver- 
sation ;  or  rather  it  was  introduced  by  a  reference  to  Mr. 
Jones's  previous  letter ;  and  Mr.  Prentice  assented  to  the 
turning  out  of  Dr.  Hobart  only  in  case  that  what  Mr. 
.Tones  had  stated  in  his  letter  and  conversation  concerning 
Dr.  Hobart  was  correct.  The  justness  of  this  view  of 
the  conversation  Mr.  Jones  did  not  deny ;  but  by  his  eva- 
'    siVeness  seemed  to  admit  it. 

"JOHN  READ." 

The  conclusion  of  the  above  statement  gives  a  very  differ- 
mi  view  of  the  part  which  Mr.  Prentice  took  in  the  con- 
versation with  Mr.  Jones  from  that  exhibited  by  this  latter 
gentleman.  It  was  natural  that  Mr.  Prentice  should  make 
the  conditional  remarks  with  respect  to  me ;  for  Mr.  Jones 
had  taken  particular  pains  to  court  his  friendship,  while  I 
was  only  in  habits  of  respectful  intimacy  with  him.  His 
sense  of  justice,  however,  led  him  to  liiake  inquiry ;  and 
his  course  of  conduct  to  me  was  very  opposite  to  that  which 
Mr.  Jones  must  have  expected. 

.  The  representation  of  the  injurious  behaviour  of  Mr, 
Jones  towards  me,  and  of  the  correctness  and  forbearance 
of  my  conduct  towards  him,  contained  in  the  above  state- 
nients  will  appear  in  a  stronger  light  from  the  following, 
whicli  I  submit,  without  comment,  to  your  perusal. 
.  I  cannot  refrain  from  presenting  entire  a  letter  of  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Wilkins,  though  I  shall  have  occasion  to  refer  more 
particularly  to  certain  portions  of  it  in  subsequent  parts  oi* 
(Ills  address.  The  same  remark  will  apply  to  the  state 
jQiebt  of  tlie  Rev.  Mr.  Cooper. 

«  f rest- C/ie^fer,  Juh/ 3,  1811. 

••  My  Dear  Sib, 

.        "  I  am  happy  to  (bid  by  your  letter  of  yesterday,  thai 

.    you  hare  taken  the  resolution  to  repel  the  imputationf 

cast  upon  your  conduct  and  character  by  Messrs.  Jone^ 

and  Feftus,  in  Mr.  Jones's  pamphlet.    I  have,  ever  since 


(     *3     ) 

Its  publication,  had  it  in  my  mind,  that  you  would  at  last 
be  under  the  necessity  of  making  a  reply — that  you  would 
ultimately  find  it  a  measure  unavoidable,  both  on  your 
own  account,  and  on  account  of  your  friends ;  and  more 
particularly  of  the  Church.  I  think  I  know  you  so  well, 
that  it  will  be  done  as  it  becomes  a  Christian  Bishop,  with, 
meekness  and  firmness,  and  with  a  mind  invariably  atten- 
tive to  the  peace  and  advancement  of  the  kingdom  of  oiu* 
Lord  and  Master. 

<«  I  have  often  wondered  in  relation  to  this  offensive 
pamphlet,  how  the  public  could  have  been  led  away  by  it.  It 
appears  to  me  that  one  of  the  most  obvious  questions  to  be 
asked  by  every  one  who  reads,  or  hears  of  it,  must  be— 
Why  is  this  application  to  the  ptiblic  ?  Are  there  no  tribu- 
nals before  which  matters  of  this  nature  ought  in  decency 
at  least  to  have  been  brought  ?  Why  have  these  been  de- 
clined ?  And  why  is  this  attempt  made  to  throw  the  Church 
into  confusion,  by  insidiously  appealing  to  us,  who  have 
no  right  to  judge,  and  have  no  authority  to  decide  ?  In 
this  Wew  the  j)amphlet  carries  with  it  its  own  confuta- 
tion ;  and  openly  and  loudly  condemns  its  author,  and  its 
abettors.  But  I  will  not  detain  you,  who,  I  know,  at  this 
time,  have  business  enough  upon  your  hands. 

"  Your  first  question  to  me  is,  Did  you  ever  discover 
in  me  any  unfriendly  and  hostile  disposition  towards  Mr. 
Jones  ?  And  did  I  ever  even  endeavour  to  infiuetice  you 
against  Mm,  in  consequence  of  his  very  unfriendly  beha- 
viour to  me,  or  make  any  representations  to  you  on  the 
subject? 

^'  I  have  once  or  twice,  in  some  of  oijr  unrestrained  con- 
versations, heard  you  mention  Mr.  Jones's  unfriendly  and 
unbrotherly  conduct  towards  you,  as  you  seemed  to  think 
it,  in  one  or  two  instances :  but  the  only  one,  of  the  sub- 
ject of  which  I  have  any  recollection,  alluded  to  a  letter, 
you  mentioned  to  me,  as  written  by  him,  either  to  a  Lay- 
man or  a  Clergyman  of  the  Church,  in  some  country  pa- 
rish, speaking  slightly  and  invidiously  of  you,  and  of  your 
writings  and  exertions  in  favour  of  the  Church :  but  your 
manner  and  expressions  were  ever  indicative  of  sorrow  and 
I'Cgrct;  and  by  no  means  of  enmity  and  ill-will. 

"  Your  second  question  is,  Did  not  Mr.  Jones,  Dr. 
Moore,  and  Mr.  Harris  wait  on  you  a  sh<Jn  time  before 
the  meeting  of  the  late  Special  Convention,  and  endeavour 
to  induce  you  to  oppose  my  election  to  the  Episcojmte  ? 
And  did  not  Mr.  Jones  in  particular  endeavour  to  j)er- 
suade  you,  that  I  had  been,  or  was.  perj*onally  iinfrieKslly 
to  you  ? 


til 


II 


^^ 


m\ 


('    4A     ) 

«  These  three  gentlemen  did  wait  on  me,  at  the  tim« 
you  raentioft— they  dined  with  me,  and  sjient  the  greater 
part  of  the  day  with  me.     The  purpose  of  their  visit  was, 
I  have  no  doubt,  to  know  my  sentiments  concerning  the 
then  approaching  election  of  an  Assistant  Bishop.     They 
gave  me  the  first  information  of  Bishop  Moore's  call  of  a 
fecial  Convention — a  measure  which  I  told  them,  I  had 
aiyself  earnestly  recommended  to  the  Bishop.     They  in- 
timated to  me  aVish,  that  I  would  offer  myself  a  candi- 
date^ for  the  -  Episcopate.   I  told  them  decidedly,  that  I 
would  not  aeiept  of  it,  even  if  I  should  be  unanimously 
chosen— 4hat  nty  age   rendered  me  hardly  equal  to  the 
cure  of  a  parish j  and  that  it  was,  or  would  very  soon  be 
altogether  inadequate  to  the  duties  of  an  extensive  dio- 
eese— that   I   eertainly  thought  in  the  present  critical 
state  of  the  £{Hscopate  in  this  country,  an  old  man  should 
by  no  means  be  thought  of— and  tliat  we  ought,  in  duty,  at 
such  a  time  as  this,  to  turn  our  attention  to  such  as  were 
in  the  strength  and  vigour  of  age,   until  the  dioceses 
should  be  reduced  to  narrower  limits — and  that  then  the 
honour  and  respect  of  yreference  would  certainly  be  due  to 
the  elder  brethren.     I  was  then  asked  by  one  of  the  gen- 
tlemen, I  think  it  was  Dr.  Moore,  who  it  was  that  I  had 
fixed  upon  as  the  object  of  my  choice'^    lliis  question  I 
declined  answering,  by  asking  another — ^Who  is  the  person 
ymi  intend  particularly  to  oppose  ?    This  was  said  not  to 
be  a  fair  question,  and  then  the  conversation  upon  that 
.  subject  ended. 

<*  During  the  course  of  the  morning  (and  it  is  with 
great  regret  tf;^t  I  feel  myself  compelled  to  speak  of 
what  passed  under  my  own  roof)  Mr.  Jones,  traversing 
the  room  and  speaking  of  yourself,  said— nlle  had  received 
such  indignities  fi*om  you,  that  more  than  once  he  could 
scarcely  keep  his  hands  off"  of  you.  He  spoke  with  great 
agitation ;  and  turning  to  me  he  said,  Sir,  Dr.  Hobart 
was  the  man  'w  ho  prevented  your  call  to  St.  John's  Churchy 
by  urging  against  you,  your  high  Church  pnnciples; 
and  alleging  that  you  would,  by  them,  throw  the  Church 
into  confusion.  To  which  my  answer  was,  Sui*ely,  Jonesi 
that  cannot  be,  for^very  one  knows  the  high  tone  of  Dr. 
liobart's  <wn  Churdi  principles;  and  he  would  not  thus 
have  ventured  to  condemn  himself.  There  was  little 
more  said  on  this  occasion ;  and  the  conversation  soon 
took  a  more  agreeable  turn*— and  the  rest  of  the  day  was 
passed  in  great  friendliness  and  good  humour. 


C  *5  y 

<^  Tour  last  (gjl&estion  is,  Did  not  Dr.  Beach  stat«  to  you, 
the  last  monini^  of  the  Convention,  that  the  Clergy, 
who  it  was  well^nown  were  opposed  to  my  election  y to 
the  Ej)iscopate  would  agree  to  vote  for  me,  provided  there 
was  a  declaration  on  my  part,  and  that  of  my  friends, 
that  all  past  matters  should  be  for$;otten  ? 

«  There  was  something  of  that  nature  said  by  Dr. 
Beach,  on,  I  think,  the  first  day  of  the  Convention;  ^d 
I  recollect  I  either  mentioned  to  you  or  to  Mr.  How,  but 
from  what  you  say  it  must  have  been  to  you — and  I  recol- 
lect also,  that  it  met  with  the  same  opposition  from  the 
person  I  mentioned  it  to,  as  it  did  from  my  own  mind  and 
sendment,  as  particularly  improper  at  that  time.  I  do 
not  remember  the  exact  statement  of  Dr.  Beach,  orwhe- 
tl>er  it  related  to  voting  for  you,  or  only  a  general  recon- 
ciliation of  the  parties.  I  should  indeed  have  forgotten 
the  whole  transaction,  if  your  question  had  not  replaced 
it  (though  somewhat  confusedlv)  in  my  mind. 

"  I  pray  God  direct  and  bless  you,  and  deliver  the 
Church  out  of  all  her  troubles,  and  from«  the  power  *Bnd 
devices  of  her  enemies. 

"  Believe  me  with  the  hi^^hest  esteem  and  regard  - 
"  Your  afi*ectionate 

"  ISAAC  WffiEINS.   : 
«  Right  Rev.  Dr.  Hobart.*' 

«  I  do  hereby  certify,  that  my  acquaintance  with  Dr. 
Hobart  commenced  shortly  after  his  settlement  at  New- 
York  ;  that  a  strict  friendship  has  ever  subsisted  between 
us;  and  that  in  the  most  unreserved  conversations,  af  vari- 
ous times,  on  the  state  of  the  Church,  and  the  characters  of 
the  Clergy,  I  can,  and  do  most  candidly  and  solemnly  de- 
clare, I  never  heard  him  utter  a  disrespectful  sentence 
against  Mr.  Jones;  but,  on  the  contrary,  have  frequently 
heard  him  speak  in  the  most  respectful  terms  of  that  gen- 
tieman.  Nay,  even  after  the  appeai*ance  of  Mr.  Jones's 
pamphlet,  when  it  might  reasonably  have  been  exj>ected 
that  in  defence  of  his  injui'ed  character,  he  would  have 
shown  his  <*  irritable  and  violent  temper"  at  such  indecor- 
ous and  unchristian  conduct,  he  said  little,  but  sincerely 
lamented  such  an  un-ireeedented  procedure.  This,  as  it  re- 
spects a  man,  whom  I  highly  esteem,  I  am  in  duty  bound 
to  declare.  With  i*espeet  tn  Mr.  Jones — ^there  has  been  a 
friendly  intercourse  of  long  standing  between  us ;  conse- 
quently the  unfavourable  sentiments  of  that  gentleman,  re - 
spectini^  Dr.  Hobart^  have  been  known  to  me  for  some  time. 


\h\\ 


%. 


!..' ; 


jl! 


I    ' 


I 


.(i 


C    46     ) 

Previous  to  the  meeting  of  the  Special  CJonvention,  I  had 
a  visit  from  Mr.  Jones,  and  two  other  Clergymen,  for  the 
purpose,  as  I  soon  discovered,  of  ccJhversing  on  the  sub- 
ject of  that  Convention,  and  of  obtaining  my  opinion  re» 
specting  it.   Mr.  Jones  informed  me,  that  a  Special  Con- 
vention would  soon  be  called  ;  that  the  object  in  calling  it, 
was  to  elect  an  Assistant  Bishop ;  that  Dr.  Beach  and 
Dr.  Hobart  were  the  candidates  for  that  office.     He  then 
proceeded  to  relate  the  circumstances  that  had  led  to  an 
open  I'upture  between  himself  and  Dr.  Hobart,  nearly  a» 
they  are  detailed  in  his  pamphlet ;  adding,  that  Dr.  Hobart 
was  totally  unfit  for  that  high  office,  being  a  man  of  an 
irritable  and  overbearing  temper  or  disposition,  and  that, 
if  he  should  succeed,  the  ruin  of  the  Church  in  this  State 
was  inevitable.    This  I  believe  was  also  the  sentiments  of 
the  other  two  gentlemen.     On  my  telling  them,  that  as 
many  of  the  circumstances  then  related  were  new  to  me, 
I  should  duly  weigh  them,  and  act  accordingly,  they  ad- 
ded, that  it  was  not  their  intention  to  bias  my  mind,  but 
merely  to  give  a  true  statement  of  stubborn  facts. 

<<In  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Jones,  about  eighteen 
months  or  two  years  ago,  he  endeavoured  to  make  me  be- 
lieve that  Dr.  Hobart's  character  was  as  is  represented  in 
his  pamphlet. 

«  E.  COOPER. 

«  My  6,  1811." 

^«  Povghkeepsief  July  5,  1811. 
"  This  certifies,  that  having  been  for  a  number  of  years 
in  habits  of  intimacy  with  Dr.  Hobart,  I  have  at  no  time 
know  n  him  to  speak  or  write  disrespectfully  of  the  Rev. 
Cave  Jones,  but,  on  the  contrary,  to  acknowledge  him  a 
brother  of  equal  standing  in  the  ministry  Yfiih  himself; 
and  at  the  Convention  of  October,  of  1810,  having 
heard  from  Mr.  Jones's  mouth  a  number  of  jealous  and 
disagreeable  observations  respecting  the  Clergy  of  the 
city,  I  listened,  and  rather  courted  some  observations  on 
tlie  contrary  side  fi-om  Dr.  Hobart;  but  none  such  did  I 
obtain.  I  have  at  all  times  been  treated  with  politeness  by 
Dr.  Hobart,  but  he  never  has  presumed,  to  my  know- 
ledgCy  to  dictate  or  electioneer. 

**JOHN  READ." 

"  From  an  intimate  acquaintance  of  seven  years,  in 
which  I  have  been  honoured  with  a  share  in  the  confidence 
<»f  Dr.  Hobart,  I  have  had  very  frequent  opportunitici  of 


(    *7     ) 

scertaining  his  views  and  dispositions  with  regard  to  Mr. 
Jones ;  and  I  do  solemnly  declare,  that  I  have  always  con- 
sidered Dr.  Hobart  as  invariably  disposed  to  support  and 
befriend  Mr.  Jones;  to  act  towards  him  with  all  that  af- 
fectionate attention  which  one  Cleri^yman  has  a  right  to 
expect  from  another  associated  with  him  iu  the  same 
parish. 

"  Many  instances  have  fallen  under  my  observation,  in 
which  Dr.  Hobart  has  defended  the  character  of  Mr. 
Jones  from  the  attacks  of  those  who  have  not  been  pleased 
with  his  conduct.  Where  the  feelings  of  Mr.  Jones  have 
been  concerned,  I  have  known  Dr.  Hobart  to  take  a  warm 
and  decided  part  in  his  favour ;  and  I  do  know  that  he  has 
frequently  prevented  the  sensibility  of  Mr.  Jones  from  be- 
ing \iounded  in  the  discharge  of  his  ministerial  duties.  I 
further  know  Dr.  Hobart  to  have  been  opposed  to  hearing 
insinuations  prejudicial  to  Mr.  Jones.  In  one  instance, 
when  it  was  suggested  to  him,  about  four  years  ago,  that 
Mr.  Jones  entertained  views  and  feelings  unfriendly  to 
him,  Dr.  Hobart,  with  considerable  severity,  censured 
the  person  who  made  the  communication,  and  declared 
that  he  believed  no  such  thing,  nor  would  he  listen  to 
any  such  insinuations ;  at  the  same  time  expressing  a  high 
opinion  of  the  correctness  of  Mr.  Jones's  principles. 

"  Nothing  but  a  sense  of  duty  could  induce  me  to 
make  this  statement,  as  1  should  extremely  regret  wound- 
ing the  feelings  of  any  man,  much  more  the  feelings  of 
one  from  w  horn  I  have  received,  as  I  have  formerly  from 
Mr.  Jones^  marks  of  friendship  and  aUention. 

"  JOHIV  C.  RUDD. 
'^  Rector  of  St.  John's  Church,  Elizabeth-Town, 

New-Jersey,     . 
*'  June  10, 1811.'^ 

j*  In  December,  1807,  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church 
did  me  the  honour  of  calling  me  to  officiate,  for  a  limited 
toe,  in  that  parish.  In  this  station  I  was  continued  until 
July,  1809.  During  that  period  of  above  eighteen  months, 
I  had  many  opportunities  both  to  observe  the  conduct  of 
Dr.  Hobart  towards  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jones,  and  to  hear  him 
speak  of  that  gentleman.  In  regard  to  the  conduct  of 
Dr.  Hobart  towards  him,  I  do  declare,  without  the  least 
hesitation,  that  it  appeared  to  me,  in  the  greatest  degree, 
respectfij  a«d  affectionate.  In  public  as  well  as  in  pri- 
vate, 1  saw  Dr.  Hobart  treat  him  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
saubfy  my  mind  that  he  was  desirous  to  please  Mr.  Jonos, 


kj 


I 
I  I 


'/ 


(  ♦a  > 

and  to  render  him  happy  in  that  intercourse  which  their 
situation,  as  ministers  of  the  same  parish,  obliged  them 
io  maintain  with  each  other.     Although  Dr.  Hobart  was 
entitled  to  the  precedence,    I  saw  him   several  times 
cheerfully  yield  it  to  Mr.  Jones  on  conspicuous  occasions. 
With  reference  to  what  Dr.  Hobart  said  of  Mr.  Jones  w 
mv  hearing,  I  affirm,  tliat  he  did  umformly  speak  of  him 
in  terms  of  respect  and  high  esteem.     He  even  went  far 
bevond  all  this.     He  often  stood  forth  as  the  apologist  of 
Mr.  Jones,  at  the  risk  of  incurring  the  displeasure  of  se- 
veral  of  his  friends.     When  Mr.  Jones  was  censured  and 
i-eproached,  Dr.  Hobart  was  foremost  in  the  vindication  of 
his  character.   When  unworthy  motives  were  assigned  for 
any  part  of  his  conduct.  Dr.  Hobart  was  always  ready 
to   offer   a  favourable   construction.     And   when   it   is  ^ 
considered  that  the  writer  of  these  remarks,  during  the  ^ 
i^hole  time  of  his  residence  in  New-York,  was  on  the 
strictest  and  most  intimate  terms  of  friendship  and  confi 
denee  with  Dr.  Hobart,  it  is  hoped  that  this  circumstancj? 
will  add  some  weight  to  what  is  above  asserted.   Had  Dr. 
Hobart  been  in  the  practice  of  reviling  Mr.  Jones,  or  had 
he  been  endeavouring  in  the  least  degree  to  undermine  his 
reputation,  or  to  prejudice  his  clerical  brethren  and  other 
persons  against  Mr.  Jones,  such  conduct  could  not  have 
escaped  the  observation  of  any  one  who  was  particularly 
intimate  with  Dr.  Hobart— surely  had  such  been  the  case, 
Dr.  Hobart  would  have  endeavoured  to  impl^ss  me  with 
the  same  sentiments.    And  when,  moreover,  it  is  consi- 
dered that  Dr.  Hobart  and  myself  had  conversed  together 
several  times  i«especting  Mr.  Jones ;  when,  if  he  had  been 
so  disposed,  he  might,  with  the  utmost  safety,  have  re- 
presented Mr.  Jones  to  me  in  an  unfavourable  light ;  but 
that  so  far  from  this  being  the  fact,  I  wai  led,  among 
other  considerations,  to  regard  Mr.  Joues  as  a  respecta- 
ble and  worthy  Clergyman,  from  the  high  term»  of  com- 
mendation  in  which  Dr.  Flobart  had  repeatedly  mentioned 
ym^-.l  think  that  I  am  warranted  in  tlius  explicitly  de- 
claring to  all  whom  it  may  concern,  that  I  saw  Dr.  Hobart 
uniformly  treat  Mr.  Jones  with  respect,  and  that  I  fre- 
quently heard  him  speak  of  this  gentleman  with  affecdonatc 

'^^''^'  -  J.  CHAPMAN, 

«  Minister  of  St.  Peter's  Church  in  Perth-Amboy. 

New-Jersey. 
<*  June  8, 1811." 


(    *^    ) 

I  am  satisfied  that  there  is  not  a  Clergyman,  or  any  other 
person  in  this  State,  or  elsewhere,  who  has  had  an  oppor- 
tunity of  judiring,  who  cannot  testify  to  the  terms  of  esteem 
and  friendship  in  which  I  always  spoke  of  Mr.  Jones. 

The  distance  of  most  of  the  other  Clergy  from  the  city 
has  pi*evented  my  obtaining  their  testimony,  which,  I  con-- 
fidently  ai^ert,  would  further  confirm  the  above  statements. 
So  scrupuldusly  correct,  indeed,  has  been  my  behaviour^  in 
res|>ect  to  Mr.  Jones,  that  a  Clergyman  of  our  Church,  who 
lives  in  a  remote  part  of  the  State,  and  who  frequently  has 
been  an  inmate  in  my  family,  mentioned  to  me  in  the'Con- 
vention  of  October  last,  that  he  had  long  perceived  the  se- 
cret unfriendliness  of  Mr.  Jones  to  me ;  that  he  was  satisfied  it 
could  not  have  escaped  my  observation  ,•  and  that  I  had  pre- 
served, in  my  intercourse  with  him,  so  strict  a  silence  as  to 
I  Mr.  Jones's  conduct,  that  he  was  sometimes  almost  induced 
to  refer  it  to  a  want  of  cojifidence  in  him. 

Unfortunately,  Gentlemen,  suspicion  seems  very  early  to 
I  have  obtained  a  seat  in  the  mind  of  my  colleague.     I  am 
jautliorized  by  Bishop  Moore  to  state,  that  he  thinks  so  long 
a.i^o  as  the  tinfe  when  I  was  elected  a  Trustee  of  Columbia 
I  College,  which  was  soon  after  my  settlement  in  the  city, 
Mr.  Jones,  in  a  conversation  with  him,  seemed,  in  a  st>le 
of  complaint,  to  attribute  this  to  Dr.  Beach's  influence. 
I  Bishop  Moore,  however,  very  distinctly  recollects,  that  ab©ut 
this  period  Mr.  Jones  came  to  him  in  a  state  of  considera- 
ble agitation,  and  complained  of  Dr.  Beach's  endeavours 
I  to  depress   him;  applying  to  him  (Dr.  Beach)  the  same 
^epithets  of  assumingf  tyrannicaU  and  overbearm^,  which 
he  afterwards  transferred  to  me;  and  Observing' that  he 
(Mr.  Jones)  did  not  possess  those  arts,  which  others  conld 
I  exercise,  of  flattery  and  obsequiousness,  to  ingratiate  him- 
self into  the  good  opinion  of  Dr.  Beach.     In  regard  to  all 
those  points  on  which  I  adduce  Bishop  Moore's'  testimony, 
I  would,  once  for  all,  observe,  that  he  is  on  the  spot,  and 
'  you  can  obtain  satisfaction  for  yourselves. 

Did  I  not  feel  a  repugnance,  even  in  self-defence,  to  enter 
into  the  retirement  of  families,  and  bring  to  view  the  conver- 
sation and  events  that  passed  during  tiie  period  of  confidential 
and  affectionate  intercourse,  I  could  still  further  corroboi-ate 
this  testimony,  which  I  trust  you  will  already  deem  suffi- 
ciently decisive.  I  must  be  permitted,  however,  to  present 
the  testimony  of  two  gentlemen,  whose  names,  if  they  had 
not  been  introduced  into  Mr.  Jones's  pamphlet,  would  not 
l)ave  appeared  in  this  address. 


ml 


'     1 


HI' 


It  i 


lint  ■ 


WT 


(    ^0    ) 

«  The  affairs  of  the  Chureli  have  frequently  been  the 
subject  of  unreserved  conversation  between  Dr.  Hobart 
and  myself.  I  can  say  with  truth,  that  until  recently,  I 
never  heard  Dr.  Hobart  express  a  sentiment  unfavourable 
to  Mr.  Jones ;  but  that  long  subsequent  to  my  having 
heard  the  report  that  a  coolness  subsisted  between  Mr. 
Jones  and  himself,  I  perceived  no  alteration  of  the  re- 
spectful  manner  in  which  he,  Dr.  Hobart,  hkd  been  accus- 
tomed to  mention  Mr.  Jones's  name ;  and  was  not  only 
induced  to  disbelieve  the  report,  but  actually  at  several 
times  denied  the  truth  of  it. 

♦'  In  the  summer,  or  early  in  the  fall  of  1808,  Mr. 
Jones,  ia  company  with  the  Rev.  Joab  G.  Cooper,  called  at 
the  store,  and  inquired  after  some  pamphlets  that  had 
been  printed  for  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Society  for  the 
Promotion  of  Religion  and  Learning.  After  giving  Mr. 
Jones  as  accurate  a  statement  of  the  disposition  of  the 
pamphlets  as  my  recollection  served,  he  requested  to  see 
the  account  in  the  ledger.  On  a  little  examination,  he 
asked  by  whose  order  the  articles  were  delivered.  1  told 
him  those  which  formed  tlie  first  item  were  certainly  de- 
livered by  oi*der  of  Dr.  Hobart,  and  probably  some  others 
-were  delivei-ed  by  the  same  order;  and  some,  I  added, 
were  delivered  by  oixler  of  other  gentlemen.  He  then 
asked  me  to  give  him  a  copy  of  the  account  to  a  certain 
extent,  pointing  to  the  line.  I  took  up  a  scrap  of  paper 
and  began  writing,  when  he  turned  to  Mr.  Cooper  with 
this  remark — Aye,  all  Dr.  Hobart,  all  Dr.  Hobart;  you 
see  hoxv  it  is — it  must  all  be  done  as  Dr.  Hobart  directs. 
These,  I  think,  were  his  express  words,  and  they  were 
said  in  such  a  manner  as  convinced  me  there  was  some 
truth  in  the  rumour  which  then  began  to  prevail,  that 
a  misunderstanding  or  disaffection  subsisted  between  Mr. 
Jones  and  Dr.  Hobart. 

<>  Thi'ee  or  four  weeks  previous  to  the  appearance  of 
the  '  Appeal,'  Mr.  Jones  called  at  the  store,  and  asked 
if  I  would  be  good  enough  to  give  him  a  certified  copy  of 
the  account  I  had  formerly  given  him,  at  the  same  time 
taking  it  from  his  pocket  and  handing  it  to  me.  Yes, 
Mr.  Jones,  with  pleasure,  said  1. — Well,  you  can  say  they 
were  all  delivered  \sy  order  of  Dr.  Hobart,  can't  you  ?— 
No,  Mr.  Jones,  I  can  say  no  such  thing ;  for  I  am  pretty 
certain  a  part  of  them  was  delivered  by  order  of  the 
Bishop,  and  I  believe  his  written  orders  for  them  are  now 
in  the  house :  but  the  gentlemen  who  received  them  will 
soon  be  in  town,  and  you  can  ascertain  from  thfm  by 


(    51    ) 

Whose  order  they  Were  delivered.  [This  was  said  by  me 
in  refei-ence  to  the  Special  Convention,  then  shortly  to  be 
convened.]— Well,  said  Mr.  Jones,  you  will  i::ive  me  such 

a  certified  copy  as  yon  can  ?^Yes^  Sir,,  with  pleasure 

^  To  be  candid,  he  added,  I  will  tell  you  for  what  purpose 
I  want  it.  An  order  passed  the  Society  for  printing  two 
tracts,  and  Dr.  Hobart  was  to  see  it  done ;  but  it  has  never 
been  done ;  the  moiiey  was  misapplied.  Mr.  How  and 
Dr.  Hobart  have  combined  together,  and  every  thing 
must  be  done  as  they  please  to  direct.  This  ambitious 
young  man  is  aiming  at  the  top  of  the  ladder,  and  we 
must  do  what  we  can  to  pull  him  down— we  must  show 
him  in  his  true  colours.  A  crisis  is  approaching  at  which 
it  becomes  our  duty  to  stop  him  in  hi»  career.  If  he  is 
elected  to  the  Episcopate,  we  shall  have  such  a  scene  of 
tyranny  exercised  in  the  Church,  as  has  not  been  seen 
since  the  days  of  Archbishop  Laud.^  Some  further  con- 
versation ensued,  which  it  is  not  necessarv  to  relate. 

"  With  respect  to  Mr.  Jones's  understanding  that  all 
the  articles  in  the  account  were  delivei^d  by  order  of  Dr. 
Hobart,  I  have  only  ^o  say,  that  he  must  have  very  much 
misconceived  me,  for  I  solemnly  declare  I  never  said  any 
thing  to  him,  or  to  any  other  person,  that  could  have  in- 
duced such  a  belief.     And  in  regard  to  the  insinuation  that 
my  mind  was  put  upon  a  certain  train  of  thought,  I  must 
observe,  that  1  never  mentioned  to  Dr.  Hobart  the  fact 
of  Mr.  Jones's  inquiry  after  the  pamphlets,  or  of  his  get- 
ting the  account,  until  the  Monday  subsequent  to  the  con- 
versation last  mentioned,  when,  at  my  request,  Dr.  Ho- 
bart called  upon  me,  and  I  explained  to  him  the  chief 
part  of  what  is  related  above.     I  was  equally  the  friend 
of  Mr.  Jones  and  Dr.  Hobart,  and  as  I  expected  Mr.  Jones 
would  call  in  a  day  or  two  to  get  such  a  certified  copy  of 
tlie  account  as  my  recollection,  or  the  documents  I  might 
find,  would  enable  me  to  give,  and  as  I  knew  not  what 
use  was  intended  to  be  made  of  it,  I  did  think  it  ray  duty 
to  put  Dr.  Hobart  on  his  guai-d,  and  for  that  purpose  alone 
I  requested  him  to  call,  and  made  the  explanation  already 
mentioned. 

"  JAMES  SWORDS. 
'^  J>rew-rork,  July  25,  1811." 

I  think  there  is  the  greatest  presumption,  from  the  above 
statement,  that  the  Rev.  Joab  G.  Cooper,  of  Hudson,  was 
also  the  depositau>  of  Mr.  Jones's  injurious  representations 
in  regard  to  myself.     I  am  in  possession  of  manv  cii-cum- 


;  i 


lift 


(     5^    ) 

stances  eOrroborative  of  this  presumption ;  but  as  the  aseer- 
talHinef  it  to  be  a  fact  is  not  ver^  material,  I  have  taken  no 
trouble  in  the  business,  and  am  unwilling  to  detain  you  with 
the  recital  of  those  circumstances  which  incidentallj  came 
to  mj  knowledge. 

<*  In  a  conversation  with  Dp.  Hobart,  during  the  latter 
part  of  the  last  winter,  or  oommencement  of  the  spring, 
he  made  some  general  remarks  on  the  injurious  treatment 
be  had  received  from  Mr.  Jones,  in  answer  to  some  in- 
quiries from  myself  and  another  person.  During  the 
whole  of  Dr.  Hobart's  intercourse  with  my  family,  he 
always  expressed  himself,  previous  to  this  conversation, 
in  terms  friendlj^tow  ards  Mr.  Jones ;  and  I  never  hesird 
Dr.  Hobart  utter  a  word  disrespectful  of  him. 

"  About  two  years  ago,  in  a  conversation  with  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Harris,  he  spoke  to  me  concerning  the  state  of  things 
between  Dr.  Hobart  and  Mr.  Jones,  and  observed,  that 
Dr.  Hobart  discovered  the  greatest  Christian  forbearance 
under  the  treatment  which  he  received  from  Mr.  Jones. 
Mr.  Harris  expressed  himself  exceedingly  desirous  to 
preserve  peace,  and  spoke  in  terms  of  the  warmest  affec- 
tion for  Dr.  Hobart.  Until  Mr.  Harris  mentioned  these 
circumstances,  I  was  ignorant  that*  there  was  any  misun- 
derstanding between  any  of  the  Clergy. 

"  PETER  MACKIE. 

<^  July  22,  1811.'* 

Thus  is  appears  that  the  family  of  a  person  whom  Miv 
Jones  is  pleased  to  represent  as  "  my  bosom  friend,"  never 
in  my  most  unguarded  moments  heard  me  utter  any  thing 
disrespectful  concerning  him.  And  even  the  injurious  treat- 
ment which  I  had  received  from  him,  I  never  mentioned  to 
them  until  very  i-ecently,  when  Mr.  Jones  and  his  friends  were 
engaged  in  circulating  pnvately  complaints  of  persecution 
from  myself  and  others ;  and  then  my  ivmarks  were  called 
forth  by  "  inquiries,''  and  were  only  of  a  «  general"  nature. 

TVhat  then.  Gentlemen,  does  it  appear  from  the  above 
recited  testimony  was  my  conduct  to  Mr.  Jones? 

I  was  always  solicitous  to  prevent  Mr.  Jones  from  sup- 
posing that  he  was  neglected  in  the  affaix:^  of  the 
Church.* 

*  Blsliop  Mooie's  statement,  p.  21  of  this  address?. 


Through  my  instrumentality  he  was  often  invited  ta 
meetings  of  the  Clergy,  when  these  affairs  were  trans- 
ax?  ted.*  • 

I  frequently  declined  public  duties  in  his  favour,  and  re- 
linquished to  him  a  precedence  to  which  I  was  justly 

entitled.!  ,  ,     .  , 

I  always  defended  his  character  when  it  was  treated  with 
disi*espect,  and  discovered  dissatisfaction  whenever  he 
WHS  spoken  of  in  unfavourable  tenns.i 
On  the  mind  of  my  most  intimate  friend,  when  he  be- 
came the  colleague  of  myself  and  Mr.  Jones,  and  in 
whom,  if  I  had  been  adverse  to  Mr.  Jones,  it  would 
have  been  easy  to  have  excited  unpleasant  feelings  to- 
w  ards  him,  I  made  expressions  concerning  him  only  of 
a  "  favourable  kind."§ 
In  line,  without  detaining  you  with  more  details,  I  trust 
it  appears  that  I  was  uniformly  his  zealous  friend,  ad- 
vocate, and  panegyrist.|| 

But  perhaps  while  I  was  thus  uniformly  the  open  friend, 
advocate,  and  panegjrist  of  Mr.  Jones,  I  was  secretly  in- 
dulging a  jealous  enmity  against  him,  and  forming  plots  for 
his  downfal ;  to  remove  every  obstacle  in  the  career  of  my 
inordinate  ambition.  This  would  attribute  to  me  a  malig- 
nity and  hypocrisy  to  be  found  only  in  the  basest  of  men. 
But  is  it  morally  possible?  Could  such  an  uniform  sys- 
tem of  malignant  duplicity  for  so  long  a  time  be  prosecuted, 
without  detection,  by  an  individual  whom  his  accusers  re- 
present as  impetumis  and  violent  in  his  temper,  hasty  an^ 
unguarded  in  his  language  ?  He  must  indeed  be  a  prodigy, 
uniting  in  himself  exiit.nes  never  before  united  in  the  hu- 
man character.  On  the  subject  of  my  behaviour  to  Mr. 
Jones  during  the  period  alluded  to,  I  can  defy  scrutiny. 
Not  one  disrespectful  act  has  been,  can  be,  proved  upon  me. 
I  have  exhibited  the  testimony  of  persons,  all  of  whom  were 
frequently  the  witnesses  of  my  conduct;  with  many  of  whom 
I  was  intimately  connected  in  the  transaction  of  the  aftairs 
of  the  Church ;  many  of  whom  were  frequently  the  inmates 
of  my  house,  and  privy  to  all  the  secrets  of  my  heart.  With 
them  1  daily  mingled,  not  only  in  the  guarded  hours  of  pub- 
lic converse,  but  in  those  unreserved,  those  delightful,  yet, 


•  Bishop  Moore's  statement,  p.  21  of  this  address, 
f  Ibid.  Mr.  How's  statement,  p.  23;  and  Mr.  Chapman's,  p. 
I  See  the  prece<ling  statements  in  this  address  generally. 
i  Mr.  How*h  statement,  p.  23. 

1  See  the  precedii«s  statements  in  this  address  geaeraUv. 


iii. 


\ 


I 


1^1:  = 


f'j), 


L/  (     54     ) 

where  unworthy  passions  sway  the  bosom,  those  danget'oiis 
moments,  when  the  soul,  giving  herself  up  to  the  confi- 
dence of  affection,  throws  off  all  disguise.  Not  one  un- 
friendly expression  escaped  me  concerning  the  man  who 
then  supposed,  and  has  since  proclaimed  to  the  world,  that 
I  was  ambitiously  planning  his  ruin,  and  had  already  com- 
menced against  him  a  system  of  unrelenting  persecution**- 
I  was  his  advocate,  his  panegyrist. 

But  what  was  his  conduct^it  is  humiliating,  it  is  painful 
to  be  compelled  in  self-defence  to  draw  the  contrast-*-what 
was  his  conduct  to  me  ? 

The  ingenuousness  displayed  by  me-^in  the  only  cases 
in  which  I  discovered  that  I  had  displeased  him-^ 
which  should  have  led  him  only  more  entirely  to  give 
me  his  heart — induced  him  to  view  me  with  <•  dis- 
trust ?"* 

Two  unimportant  occurrences,  (in  the  course  of  an  inti- 
mate intercourse  of  years)  in  which  every  wound  that 
his  feelings  had  unintentionally  received  from  me  was 
soothed  and  healed  by  my  acknowledgments,  he  was 
treasuring  up  in  his  memory,  finally  to  record  them, 
and  to  publish  them  to  the  world. 

He  addressed  a  letter  to  a  Clergyman,  charging  me  with 
being  actuated  by  the  most  imworthy  \iews  in  my  writ- 
ings, and  with  diverting  the  money  of  a  society  from 
the  purpose  to  which  it  was  appropriated,  and  «  ap- 
plying it  another  way,  as  suited  my  own  wishes  and 
views."! 

This  vague  charge  naturally  induced  the  person  to  whom 
it  was  communicated  to  suppose,  that  I  had  "  either 
embezzled  the  money,  or  purchased  therewith  for  dis- 
tribution my  own  controversial  writings.'':|: 

Unknown  to  me  he  pi^cured  from  the  Messrs.  Swords  a 
statement  of  the  account  of  the  society,  with  the  view 
of  substantiating  the  charge.^ 

This  accusation,  which,  if  true,  proved  upon  me  no  less 
a  crime  than  that  of  a  dishonest  appropriation  of  mo- 
ney entrusted  to  me— «to  use  Mr.  Jones's  own  words, 
«  a  misapplication  of  the  trust  committed  to  me," 
(p.  25)  and  which,  in  a  subsequent  part  of  tl^s  addrcss> 

*  Appeal,  p.  9. 

t  Mr.  Prentice's  letter,  p.  20  of  the  Appeal. 
-^  Mr.  Prentice's  statement,  p.  34  of  Ihia  addreis. 
'  Appeal,  p.  24. 


C  w  ) 

I  shall  prove  to  be  wholly  unfounded,  was  urged  by 
Mr.  Jones  5  without  his  ever  mentioning  to  me  that  he 
entertained  such  a  charge,  or  demanding  of  me  an  ex- 
planation ;  though  we  were  then  in  habits  of  daily,  and, 
as  I  supposed,  of  the  most  unreserved  and  friendly  in- 
tercourse. 
On  a  journey  which  he  undertook  through  the  State  a  few 
weeks  after  this  letter  was  written,  he  acknowledges,^*^ 
that  he  stated  to  the  Clergyman  to  whom  the  letter 
was  addressed,  that  a  **  system  of  favouritism  and  of 
denunciation  was  pursued  in  the  city^' — and  that  in  con- 
sequence, "  some  of  the  Clergy  thought  it  was  time  to 
endeavour  to  put  a  stop  to  this  system,  and  had  thoughts 
of  endeavouring  to  turn  out  Dr.  Hobart  from  the  office 
of  Secretary,  which  gave  him  a  great  opportunity  of 
promoting  his  private  views :"  and  in  a  recent  conver- 
sation with  two  of  the  Clergy,  he  acknowledged,  that 
he  and  some  others  had  ^'  determined  not  to  vote  for 
Dr.  Hobart.)" 

On  this  same  journey,  evidently  with  a  view  of  rendering 
me  odious  and  unpopular,  in  conversation  with  this 
same  Clergyman,  he  "  enlarged  on  what  he  deemed  my 
imiierfeetions  and  vices ;"  and  *'  almost  his  whole  con- 
versation was  calculated  to  induce  a  belief,  that  I  was  a 
hasty,  ambitious,  ill-bred  man ;  not  worthy  of  the  minis- 
terial character,  and  by  no  means  deserving  of  the  confi- 
dence of  my  brethren  :":j:  and  in  a  conversation  with  ano- 
ther Clergyman  he  introduced  this  same  subject  of  the 
"  tracts;"  repeated  the  same  charge  of  my  **  pursuing 
a  system  of  favouritism ;"  appeared  "  inclined  to  blame 
me  for  deficiency  of  duty  as  Secret aiy  of  the  Conven- 
tion ;"  and  "  the  whole  course  of  his  observations  and 
remarks,  impressed"  this  Clergyman  "  with  the  belief 
that  he  (Mr.  Jones)  entertained  an  unfavoui'?.ble  opi- 
nion of  mc  and  my  manner  of  proceeding."^ 

This  last  named  Clergyman  "  distinctly  recollects  Mr. 
Jones's  asserting,"  and  Mr.  Jones  acknowledged  to  me 
the  fact,  "  that  I  had  drawn  up  a  number  of  charges 
against  the  Rev.  Mr.  Feltus,  which  he  was  persuaded 
I  could  not  substantiate" — ^thus  representing  me  as  a  ca- 

•  Appeal,  p.  27. 

t  Statement  of  Mr.  Read,  p.  41  of  this^aiWress. 

t  Mr.  Prentice's  ststetnent,  p.  34. 

\  Mr.  Bnlkley,  in  his  statement,  p.  38.  A  remark  Irere  obviously  occurs,  that 
while  the  drift  of  Mr.  Jones's  conversation  was  the  same,  he  used  expressions 
more  or  less  strong,  according  to  what  he  supposed  Ava»the  con&deuce  he  could 
place  in  tlie  particular  Clergyman  whom  he  addressed. 


W 


%. 


v^ 


'!(. 


I 


(     66     ) 

luttiniator  ,•  though  he  had  never  s6en  the  aecu9fttions  of 
which  he  speaks,  having  been  absent  from  the  city 
when  they  were  signed  by  all  the  Clergy;  and  had 
never  inquired  of  me,  as  common  justice  would  have 
dictated,  what  they  wete,  and  what  were  my  authori- 
ties for  them. 

The  injurious  behaviour  of  Mr.  Jones  to  me  above  de- 
tailed took  place  while  I  considered  him  as  my  friend,  was 
on  all  occasions  his  advocate  and  defender,  indulged  in  un- 
reserved communications  with  him,  and  unsuspicious  of  any 
t*hange  in  his  sentiments  towards  me,  reposed  eonlidentlj 
oh  his  friendship  and  affection. 

I  must  beg  leave  here  incidentally  to  remark,  that  Mr. 
Jones  had  charged  me  with  having  ma^  accusations  against 
Mr.  Fdtus  which  I  could  not  suhstantiate,  although  he  had 
Bever  seen  the  accusations,  nor  knew  what  proofs  of  them  I 
possessed.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Feltus,  in  his  statement,  (p.  98  and 
100)  apparently  with  the  view  of  shielding  Mr.  Jones  from  cen- 
sure, considers  the  assertion  of  my  having  charged  liim  with 
«  forging  his  tesiimonials"  as  the  "  base  calumny"  which  I 
atti'ibuted  to  Mr.  Jones.  But  Mr.  Jones,  in  his  conversa- 
tion with  Mr.  Bulk  ley,  speaks  of  **  a  number  of  charges 
drawn  up  by  me  against  Mr.  Felfus  ;"*  evidently  meaning 
«  the  sheet  of  false  accusations"  of  which  this  gentleman 
speaks  in  his  statement.!  Now,  in  this  sheet  of  false  accu- 
sations, there  is  not  a  word  concerning  Mr.  Feltus's  testi- 
tnonials — it  was  not  possible — ^the  former  was  written  in 
June  12,  1807,  and  the  latter  Sej>tembcr  21,  of  the  same 
year.:|:  Mr.  Jones,  therefore,  as  he  evidently  alluded  to  the 
*<  sheet  of  false  accusations,"  could  not  have  referred  to  the 
charge  of  foi'gery ;  unless  he  supposed  this  charge  was  con- 
tained in  the  written  accusations  against  Mr.  Feltus ;  and 
then  he  proves  his  ignorance  of  the  real  state  of  the  ease. 
Before  these  gentlemen  ventured  to  adduce  such  serious 
charges  against  my  character,  they  should  surely  have  made 
themselves  fully  acquainted  with  facts.  On  the  contrary, 
they  appear  to  have  had  very  imperfect  and  erroneous  ideas 
on  a  subject  in  which  accuracy  and  certainty  alone  could 
have  authorized  their  charge. 

It  is  with  pain  and  reluctance  that  I  entered  on  the  exhi- 
bition of  this  detail.  It  renews  those  poignant  feelings 
which  the  discovery   of  the   secret  but  violent  hostility 


*  Mp.  Bulkle/s  state  laent^  p.  38. 
>  Appeal,  p.  97. 


t  P.  94  of  the  Appesl 


.C     57     ) 

of  a  brother  and  a  friend  first  excited  in  my  bosom.  To  a 
mind  of  common  sensibility  it  is  always  a  disgusting  task  to 
display  the  dark  features  of  the  human  character.  I  cannot 
be  insensible  that  the  ministry  suffers  in  every  exposure  of 
the  unworthy  tempers  or  conduct  of  those  who  exercise  its 
holy  functions.  And  I  trust  you  will  believe  me  sincere  in 
the  declaration,  that,  deeply  as  I  feel  myself  injured  by 
Mr.  Jones,  it  is  not  without  a  pang  that  I  exhibit  state- 
ments which  are  calculated  to  sink  him  in  the  estimation  of 
the  world.  I  have  forborne  for  years  under  his  secret  and 
systematic  attempts  to  destroy  me  in  the  confidence  of  my 
brethren—*!  have  forborne  under  his  recent  public  attack^ 
when,  by  success,  he  hoped  to  humble  me  for  eveiv— I  have 
forborne,  until  my  own  reputation  and  usefulness  are  en- 
dangered by  the  unwearied  and  uncontradicted  misrepresen- 
tations of  himself  and  his  friends.  I  solemnly  declare^  that, 
were  my  station  a  private  one^  I  should  still  forbear.  But 
I  owe  it  to  the  Church,  to  the  religion  of  him  whose  com- 
mission I  sustain,  to  vindicate  my  character— -and,  unfor- 
tunately, this  cannot  be  done,  without  displaying  the  un- 
worthy conduct  of  him  who  has  assailed  it, 

I  am  persuaded,  you  are  not  disposed  to  doubt  my  since-^ 
rity  when  I  declare  that  at  the  period  when  Mr.  Jones  de» 
noimced  me,  I  was  unconscious  of  an  unfriendly  sentiment  to 
him ;  that,  on  the  contrary,  I  entertained  the  sincerest  re- 
gard for  him ;  that  from  the  influence  of  this  sentiment,  as 
well  as  from  an  earnest  desire  to  live  in  entire  harn^ony  with 
a  brother  and  a  colleague,  I  had  shut  my  eyes  to  faults  of 
character,  which  others  discerned  in  him,  and  which  unfor- 
tunately subsequent  experienoe  has  proved  he  possesses; 
that  I  refused  to  hear  insinuations  to  his  disadvantage,  and 
particularly  of  his  unfriendly  sentiments  to  me ;  that  on  all 
occasions  I  sought  to  pi'omote  his  consequence,  to  soothe  and 
gratify  him  by  yielding  to  him  my  just  claims.  When  thus. 
Gentlemen,  in  the  exercise  of  the  most  disinterested 
friendship  for  him,  I  discovered .  that  he  was  pursuing  the 
system  of  hostility  towards  me  detailed  in  the  foregoing  state- 
ments, what  was  my  conduct  ?  Did  I  renounce  all  inter- 
course with  a  man  thus  treacherous  to  the  vows  of 
friendship  ?  Impelled  by  the  rights  of  character,  and  the 
claims  of  public  justice,  did  I  impeach,  at  the  tribunals  of 
the  Church,  an  individual  who  was  seeking  to  destroy  the 
reputation  of  a  bi*other,  and  to  interrupt  her  peace  ?  Or  did 
I,  instead  of  this  frank  and  jusiijiahit  appeal,  proclaim  hit 
conduct  to  the  world,  and  endeavour  to  hold  him  up  to  its  re» 
sentment?  No,  instead  of  injuring  Mr*  Jones  I  proposed  to 

8 


h  i 


;     ' 


I  ,' 


tl 


m 


(     58     ) 

veth'e  and  to  place  Jiim  in  consequence  and  power.  My 
wrongs  reposed  almost  entirely  in  my  own  bosom.  I  com- 
mitted them — not  with  tears  of  resentment  called  forth  by 
wounded  pride,  but  of  sorrow  at  the  view  of  the  ties  of 
fiiendship  broken,  and  the  peace  and  honour  of  the  Church 
endangered — I  committed  them  to  the  sacred  confidence  of  a 
few  friends.  I  restrained  their  resentment,  roused  not  so 
much  by  my  private  injuries  as  by  the  wounds  inflicted  on 
the  peace  and  honour  of  the  Church.  Neither  by  them  nor 
by  me  was  the  unfortunate  state  of  things  proclaimed  to  the 
world — so  guarded  and  restrained -were  we,  that  Mr.  Jones's 
representations  and  *•  ApiieaF'  first  announced,  except  to  a 
few  individuals,  the  discord  and  the  disgrace  of  our  Zion. 

Was  this,  let  me  be  permitted  to  ask,  the  conduct  of  an 
Jiasty,  impetuous,  overbearing,  ill-bred,  ambitious,  perse- 
cuting man,  a«  Mr.  Jones  has  chosen  to  represent  me  I 

So  grossly  improper  was  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Jones  prior 
to  the  fall  of  1808,  that  every  mark  of  displeasure,  admit- 
ting liis  representation  correct,  which  he  subsequently  re- 
ceived, was  sanctioned  by  justice ;  and  even  required  by  a  re- 
43fard  to  the  peace  and  honour  of  the  Church  and  by  that  scnsi- 
hility  to  th«?  dignity  of  the  clerical  character  which  guards  it 
from  violation,  by  marking  with  disgrace  the  unworthy  acts 
of  those  who  liear  it.  But  I  do  not  avail  myself  of  this 
idea.  I  deny  the  accuracy  of  Mr.  Jones's  representations. 
My  conduct  to  him  subsequently  to  the  autumn  of  1808  has 
been  mild,  forbearing  and  correct. 

The  statements  of  my  brethren  and  others  which  I  have 
already  exhibited  to  you,  establish  in  general  the  truth  of 
this  assertion.  Its  accuracy  in  detail  will  appear  from  a 
-statement  of  particular  facts,  and  from  an  investigation  of 
Mr.  Jones's  paiticular  charges  against  me. 

The  charge  of  applying  the  money  of  a  Society  appropri- 
ated to  particular  objects  to  <<  suit  my  own  wishes  and 

contained  in  Mr.  Jones's  letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Prentice, 
in  August,  1808,  it  is  necessajpy  I  should  particularly  consi- 
der. In  this  business  1  really  think  that  1  huve  been  ti'cated 
by  my  colleague  with  great  injustice  and  crudty.  He  stated 
a  charge  against  me  in  general  terms,  the  misapplication  of 
money  to  "  suit  my  own  wishes  and  views  ;^^  and  accompa- 
nied the  charge  with  such  insinuations  of  my  being  influenc- 
ed by  <^  ambition/'  and  with  such  a  pointed  remark  that 


(     59     ) 

this  was  **  the  way  in  which  too  much  of  the  public  busi- 
ness of  the  Church  is  transacted ;"  as  to  authorize  the  con- 
clusion that  I  was  guilty  of  a  shameful  malversation  in^- 
fice  of  frequent  and  gross  "  misapplication  of  my  trust.*" 
This  was  a  charge  which  (without  seeking  any  explanation) 
secretly  "  to  one  or  two  particular  friends,"  evidently  ex- 
pecting that  it  would  privately  cii'culate  and  thus  elude  de- 
tection, he  brought  against  a  man  whom  he  almost  daily  met 
at  the  sanctuary  or  at  the  altar,  as  a  friend  and  brother* 

It  is  a  charge  without  foundation. 

In  the  first  place,  the  tracts  stated  by  Mr.  Jones  were  not 
ordered  to  be  published.  The  "  Churchman's  Catechism" 
by  Jones  was  not  ordered,  in  consequence  of  a  suggestion 
by  me  that  I  intended  to  publish  it  with  considerable  altera- 
tions and  additions.  No  engagement  however  was  absolutely 
made ;  no  money  was  appropriated  for  it ;  and  its  non-ap- 
pearance arising  from  other  occupations  was  therefore  no  vio- 
lation of  engagement  or  breach  of  trust.  Here  Mr.  Jones  is 
incorrect.  • 

In  the  next  place,  an  appropriation  was  made  for  the  pub- 
lication of  the  Bishop's  sermon,  in  case  he  should  consent 
to  it.  Mr.  Joues  is  incorrect  in  the  insinuation  that  som^ 
«  mention"  only  ♦*  was  made  of  getting  him  to  publish  itf'f 
as  if  there  was  no  order  on  the  subject.  "    ' 

I  m^ht  reasonably  discover  some  surprize  at  the  question 
of  Mr.  Jones  concerning  the  publication  of  tracts  not  orr 
dered  to  be  published ;  and  the  stammering  manner  in  which 
I  replied,  "  why,  the  Bishop's  sermon  was  published,"  was 
perfectly  natural.  Mr.  Jones  evidently  consU*ues  this  as  a 
proof  of  my  consciousness  of  having  "  misapplied  my  trust." 
He  had  permitted  this  dark  suspicion  of  his  friend  to  enter 
into  his  mind.  He  demanded  no  explanation.  He  secretly 
went  to  the  printer  in  order  to  establish  it.  He  mentions  it 
to  «  one  or  two  particular  friends ;"  and  when  their  minds 
were  poisoned  against  me,  they  doubtless  might  mention  it 
to  as  many  more  as  they  pleased.  The  sermon  was  pub- 
lished, and  this  part  of  my  trust  was  fulfilled. 

In  the  third  place,  «  Wall's  tract  on  Infant  Baptism"  was 
not  ordered  to  be  published ;  but  the  Bishop  was  to  annex  to 
one  of  his  sermons,  a  concise  view  of  the  argument  upoft 
this  point.  This  was  done  by  him.  Here  also  was  no 
"  misapplication  of  trust."  . 

Fourthly,  I  recollect  that  at  the  appropriation  of  the  an- 
nual sum  con^'^atted  by  tliis  society  to  the  disposJil  of  the 

*  Appeal,  p.  C5. 


i\ 


Ill 


n 


■ 


k 


m 


H 


(     «50     ) 

Bishop  and  the  clerical  members  of  that  institution,  some 
portion  was  frequently  allotted  to  the  distribution  of  "  Prayer 
Books  and  Catechisms."  Here  then  also  was  no  misapplica< 
tion  of  trust. 

Whether  in  all  the  above  cas#s  all  the  mone^  appropriated 
to  a  cei-tain  o!)jeet  was  strictly  expended  upon  that  object,  I 
have  no  means  of  proving ;  for  rarely  keeping  any  accounts 
of  my  own,  I  have  not  kept  any  in  this  case,  where  I  was 
fuUy  eoniident  I  could  trust  with  the  utmost  safety  to  the 
fidelity  of  the  printers. 

The  above,  according  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  is  a 
true  statement  of  this  business.  It  was  generaUy  very  in- 
formally transacted ;  sometimes  when  one  or  two,  and  some- 
times when  more  of  the  Clergy  were  present  with  the  Bi- 
shop; Mr.  Jones,  however,  was  never  absent  that  I  did  not 
suggest  his  being  consulted.  It  is  possible,  therefore,  1  may 
not  be  strictly  correct  in  my  recollection  of  it. 

Admitting,  however,  Mr.  Jones's  representation ;  to  what 
does  it  amount  ?  "  Prayer  Books  and  Cateehisms"  were  dis- 
tributed, instead  of  «  the  Churchman's  Catechism,"  and 
«  Wall  on  Infant  Baptism."  And  this  was  his  authority  for 
charging  me  >^ith  a  particular  «  misapplication  of  uvoney 
to  suit  my  own  wishes  and  views ;"  directly  insinuating  that 
those  "  wishes  and  views"  were  dictated  by  **  ambition  and 
self-gratulation ;"  and  that  this  was  the  way  in  which  "  too 
much  of  the  public  business  of  the  Church  was  transacted." 

But,  Gentlemen,  though  Mr.  Jones  has  failed  to  support 
his  charges,  1  believe  that  in  one  or  two  cases  not  referred 
to  by  him,  tracts  that  wei^  ordered,  were  not  published ; 
the  Bishop  having  directed  Prayer  Books  and  Catechisms 
to  be  given  to  certain  Clergymen,  and  ordered  them  to 
be  charged  to  this  society;  and  no  money  was  left  for 
the  tracts.  In  one  or  two  instances  in  which  Clergymen 
-wanted  Prayer  Books  and  Catechisms,  and  pi-eferred  them 
to  tracts,  at  their  request  I  obtained  the  Bishop's  permis- 
sion, and  then  ordered  the  printers  to  furnish  them.  In  most 
cases,  however,  the  Bishop  himself  ordered  these  appropri- 
ations,  which,  though  not  strictly  regular,  certainly  af- 
forded no  ground  of  comprint.  Indeed,  I  have  a  faint  re- 
collection, that  part  of  this  annual  sum  the  Committee  placed 
at  the  disposal  of  the  Bishop  exclusively.  Certainly,  how- 
ever, none  of  us  would  have  opposed  his  wishes  on  the  sub- 
jcct.  I  declare,  that  in  no  instance  did  I  order  any  book 
but  by  the  direction  of  the  Committee,  or  of  the  Bishop. 

I  have  tlie  authority  of  Bishop  Moore  for  saying,  that  these 
tstatements^  as  far  as  he  is  concerned,  are  strictly  correct. 


m 


(    6i    ) 

Thus,  Gentlemen,  a  charge  made  by  Mr.  J<Jiie9  in  such; 
a  manner  as  to  impress  the  Clergymen  to  whom  he  made  it 
with  the  belief  that  I  «  had  either  embezzled  the  money,: 
or  appropriated  it  to  my  own  controversial  writings,"  is  ut- 
terly unfounded. 

Mr.  Jones,  a  short  time  before  the  appearance  of  his  «  Ap- 
peal," waited  on  Mr.  James  Swords  for  a  certified  copy  of  the 
account  to  the  present  day.     For  what  passed  on  that  occa- 
sion, which  further  illustrates  the  state  of  Mr.  Jones's  feel- 
ing towards  me,  I  must  refer  you  to  Mr.  Swords's  statement* 
This  gentleman  refused  to  certify  that  all  the  articles  were 
ordered  by  me ;  declaring  that  some  of  them  he  knew  were 
I  ordered  by  the  Bishop.     Mr.  Jones  asserts—**  it  is  probable 
[that  his  mind  has  been  put  upon  this  train  of  thought,"  no 
doubt  by  me.     I  say  nothing  of  the  baseness  which  this  in- 
sinuation imputes  to  me.    And  no  person  who  knows  Mr. 
Swords  can  for  a  moment  believe  that  he  is  capable  of  being 
thus  corrupted.    In  justice  to  him  and  to  myself  I  must  de- 
Iclare,  that  I  was  absent  from  the  city  at  the  time  of  this 
interview  of  Mr.  Jones  with  him,  and  knew  nothing  of  it, 
I  or  of  Mr.  Jones's  having,  on  a  former  occasion,  obtained 
from  Mr.  Swords  a  copy  of  the  account,  until  my  return. 

It  seems  necessary  here  to  notice  a  circumstance  which 
Mr.  Jones  contrives  to  connect  with  this  business ;  and  he 
urges  them  both  as  illustrative  of  the  <<  system  of  self- 
exaltation,  of  assuming  power  and  authority,"  with  which 
he  charges  me.  I  think  I  may  be  permitted  to  regard 
the  circumstance  as  more  completely  illustrative  of  the* 
propensity  of  his  mind  to  fix  on  trifles,  and  to  magnify  them 
into  glaring  schemes  of  ambition.  He  prefaces  it  by  some 
observations  on  the  "  sound  and  wise  policy"  of  Trinity 
Church  to  prevent  «  a  spirit  of  intrigue  at  elections  of  the 
Vestry,  which  would  be  attended  with  the  most  direful  ef- 
fects." This  "  sound  and  wise  policy,"  I  must  beg  leave 
to  observe,  no  person  has  contributed  to  preserve,  as  far 
as  his  influence  extended,  more  than  myself.  Mr.  Jones, 
however,  accuses  me  of  having  used  undue  influence  to  ^t 
a  geutleman,  whom  he  considers  as  "  my  bosom  friend," 
nominated  and  elected  a  member  of  the  Vestr>\  This  gen- 
tleman was  originally  nominated  without  my  knowledge, 
and  without  any  influence  direct  or  indirect  on  my  part,  by 
an  old  and  respectable  member  of  the  Vestry,  previously  to 
his  resigning  his  seat  in  that  board.  And  when  the  name 
of  «  an  excellent  man,  and  member  of  the  Church,"  was 
*>rought  forward,  I  did  feel  a  solicitude  that  he  should  be 

*  Page  50  of  this  Btatemcnt. 


fo 


l/      . 


( «2 ) 

elected.  But  that  I  used  any  undue  influence  to  effect  it  I 
must  deny.  The  crime,  however,  had  I  been  guilty  of  it, 
of  inducing  a  person  to  solicit  votes  for  this  gentleman,  is 
certainly  not  very  heinous,  and,  I  trust,  not  unpardonable. 
What  wonderful  schemes  of  «  self-exaltation"  I  could  have 
accomplished  by  getting  this  gentleman  into  the  Vestry,  mj 
colleague  has  n^t  thought  proper  to  explain. 
.  The  first  charge  which  Mr.  Jones  brings  against  me  sub- 
sequently to  the  autumn  of  1808,  is 

My  treatment  of  him  in  the  case  of  Mr.  GiUet. 

This  occurrence,  you  will  notice,  took  place  three  years 
after  the  last  of  the  two  "  extraordinary  facts,''  as  he  styles 
them,*  and  near  a  year  after  the  Convention  of  1808.    I 
must  beg  you  to  bear  in  mind  what  was  the  state  of  things 
at  this  period.     I  had  then  discovered  that,  notwithstanding 
the  zealous  and  disinterested  friendship  which  I  had  dis- 
played to  Mr.  Jones,  he  was  secretly  making  the  injurious 
attacks  upon  my  character,  which  I  liave  unfolded  in  the 
preceding  statements.     I  wish  you  also  to  bear  in  mind 
what  these  statements  also  establish,  that,  justified  as  I 
should  then  have  been  in  calling  Mr.  Jones  to  an  account 
for  his  injurious  conduct  to  me,  and  in  making  it  generallj 
known,  I  was  remarkably  I'cstrained  and  guarded ;  convers- 
ing on  the  subject  only  with  a  few  friends ;  continuing  to 
speak  of  Mr.  Jones  in  terms  of  tenderness ;  and  willing,  in 
order  to  soothe  him  and  preserve  peace,  to  withdraw  from 
all  the  stations  in  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  which  I 
had  been  so  unfortunate  as  to  excite  his  enmity.f     This 
course  of  conduct  I  continued  to  pursue.     But  a  short  time 
afterwards,  on  occasion  of  the  visiting  at  the  New  Year, 
I  addressed  a  note  to  Mr.  Jones,  stating  that  it  would  give 
Mr.  How  and  myself  great  pleasure  if  he  would  accompany 
lis.    We  visited  in  company ;  and  I  sought,  by  every  mean 
in  my  power,  to  testify  to  him  my  desire  to  remain  on 
friendly  terms  with  him.    It  was  my  wish,  as  far  as  possible, 
to  forget  his  injurious  behaviour  to  me.     I  still  yielded  to 
him  the  precedence ;  and  was  often  instrumental  in  saving 
his  feelings  from  being  wounded  by  supposed  neglect.    Tliis 
was  my  conduct,  and  these  were  my  dispositions  towainls 
him  when  the  affair  of  Mr.  Gillet  occurred. 

This  gentleman  was  particularly  intimate  with  me.    It 
was  the  opinion  of  the  Clergy  and  others  who  were  best  ac- 

•  Appeal,  p.  5. 

--  See  slMtcracflls  of  Bishop  Moore,  Dr.  BoMclen,  Mr.  Bany,  ami  others. 


(     63     > 

quaintcd  with  him,  that  there  was  no  prospect  of  his  use- 
fulness  in  the  ministry.  This  was  my  own  opinion.  Ho- 
nestly entertaining  it,  it  was  our  duty  to  act  accordingly. 
I  was  requested,  on  account  of  my  particular  acquaintance 
with  him,  to  intimate  to  him  that  it  would  be  best  for  him 
to  relinquish  his  design.  From  a  principle  of  duty  I  agi^ed 
to  undertake  the  unpleasant  task.  My  communications  to 
Mr.  Gillet  were  made  with  all  the  delicacy  and  tenderness. 
I  could  possibly  assume.  Did  it  display  a  selfish  view  of 
popularity  or  unprincipled  ambition  thus  to  hazard  the  loss 
of  the  friendship  of  this  gentleman ;  and  to  discourage  from 
entering  the  ministry  one  who  already  might  consider  him- 
self as  under  some  obligatitms  to  me  for  the  attentions 
which  he  had  received  ?  The  opinion  of  Mr.  G.  entertained 
by  myself  and  others  was  previously  communicated  to  Mr. 
Jones ;  and  I  certainly  understood,  that  as  far  as  he  had 
been  able  to  judge,  he  had  formed  the  same  opinion. 

I  found,  however,  that  after  I  had  made  this  communi- 
cation, in  the  propriety  of  which  I  really  thought  Mr.  Jones 
coincided,  an  intercourse  not  before  subsisting  commenced 
between  him  and  Mr.  Gillet ;  and  the  latter  continued  his 
views  to  the  ministry.     It  is  admitted  by  him  that  he  vi- 
sited Mr.  Jones,  though  he  states  this  was  of  "  his  own  ac- 
cord."*   And  Mr.  Jones  acknowledges  that  he  thought  "  he 
(Mr.  G.)  might  be  useful  in  certain  situations.''     During  the 
absence  of  Dr.  Beach  and  myself,  who  were  known  to  be  dis- 
inclined to  the  views  of  Mr.  Gillet,  the  Standing  Committee 
were  convened,  and  recommended  him  for  orders.     Know- 
ing, as  Mr.  Jones  did,  my  sentiments,  and  I  believe  the  sen- 
timents also  of  Dr.  Beach,  relative  to  Mr.  G.  I  think  decency 
and  propriety  required  that  when  he  found  we  were  both 
absent,  he  should  have  recommended  the  postponement  of 
Mr.  Gillet's  case  until  we  had  an  opportunity  of  expressing 
our  opinion,  and  acting  upon  it.    At  least  it  would  have 
l)een  correct  in  him  to  have   mentioned  to  the  Commit- 
tee the  circumstance  of  our  probable  disapprobation  of  Mr. 
Gillet's  views ;  and  left  them  to  judge  of  the  propriety  of 
prosecuting  the  business  during  our  absence.     Perhaps  I 
felt  more  sensibility  on  this  occasion,  from  being  conscious 
that  such  would  have  been  the  course  pursued  by  me  with 
respect  to  Mr.  Jones  in  similar  circumstances.     I  enter^ 
tained,  however,  no  tentiments  which  I  did  not  resolve  to 
communicate  to  him  with  perfect  frankness.     This  led  to 
the  conversation  between  us. 

*  CertifiaBte  of  Mr.  Gillet,  p.  17  cf  Mr.  Jones's  Appeal* 


!i 


/.• 


n 


J  ■ 


m 


fl4 


(  ^  ; 

Discoloured  as  is  this  conyersation ;  detailed  at  full  length 
as  is  Mr.  Jones's  part  of  it,  while  mine  is  abridged  and  con- 
densed^ clothed  as  are  my  sentiments  in  his  own  style  instead 
of  my  own  ,•  exaggerated  as  is  every  expression  that  could 
pssiblj  be  construed  unfavourably  to  me ;  and  softened  as 
is  every  expression  of  a  similar  nature  employed  by  Mr. 
Jones ;  even  this  conversation,  as  recorded  by  him,  affordsi 
I  humbly  presume,  full  evidence  of  the  frankness  of  my 
eonduct,  and  the  correctness  of  my  views;  and  of  the  stately 
and  jealous  independence  of  Mr.  Jones,  to  which  is  to  be  attri- 
buted  much  of  the  uneasiness  that  now  agitates  the  Church. 
The  points  on  which  I  principally  insisted  were— Mr*  Gillet'g 
want  of  intellectual  qualifications ;  and  the  impropriety  of 
Mr.  Jones's  pi-oceeding  in  this  business  without  some  friendlj 
communication  with  me. 

,   That  I  was  correct  in  regard  to  the  first  point,  is  fully 
proved  by  the  unanimous  rejection  of  Mr.  GiUet  on  his  ex- 
amination, as  incompetent,  by  the  Bishop,  and,  I  believe, 
all  the  Presb^  ters  that  were  in  the  city,  except  myself,  who 
was  purposely  absent.    But  Mr.  Jones's  plea  was,  that  the 
Standing  Committee  were  the  judges  only  of  the  pious  and 
moral  qualifications  of  the  candidates.     Certainly,  these  are 
the  principal  points  which  they  are  to  determine.    But  as 
the  testimonial  which  they  are  to  sign  requires  them  to  de- 
clare that  *«  moreover^  they  believe  the  candidate  worthy  to 
be  admitted  to  the  holy  order  of  Deacon  or  Finest,*^  it  ii 
evident  that  they  are  also  the  judges  of  his  general  fitness ; 
though  the  requisite  degree  of  his  qualifications  in  litera- 
ture and  theology,  is  more  exclusively  the  subject  of  the 
examinations  of  the  Bishop  and  his  Presbyters.     If  the  li- 
mitation  of  the  powers  of  the  Standing  Committee  con- 
tended  for  on  tliis  occasion  by  Mr.  Jones  be  correct,  they 
would  be  compelled  to  recommend  every  pious  Christian 
who  might  appl^  for  orders,  however  deficient  in  intellee- 
tual  sti-ength.    Nor  did  Mi\  Jones's  plea,  admitting  it  to  be 
correct,  that  the  Bishop  was  favourable  to  Mr.  Gillet's  ap- 
plication,  and  that  he  had  got  his  "  assent,"  rest  on  any 
better  foundation.     For  certainly,  the  spirit  of  the  canons 
evidently  implies,  that  the  Standing  Committee,  in  their  re- 
commendation for  orders,  are  presumed  not  to  know  any 
thing  of  the  opinion  of  the  Bishop.    Were  they  to  be  swayed 
by  his  judgment,  the  principal  object  of  their  agency  would 
be  rendered  nugatory. 

I  further  complained  to  Mr.  Jones  of  the  impropriety  of 
his  proceeding  in  tliis  business  without  ^ome  friendly  com- 
munication with  me.    Not  that  I  felt  disposed  in  the  least 


(    ««    ) 

t^  question  his  perfect  riglit  to  an  independent  judgnicnt, 
uncontrolled  by  me  or  any  other  person — a  point  on  which 
he  has  unhappily  discovei'ed  so  much  unfounded  suspicion. 
But  I  did  think,  as  I  then  urged  upon  him,  that  "  it  would 
be  very  useful  to  consult  together  on  the  measures  to  be  pur- 
sued."* And  I  did  also  think,  that,  as  "  I  had  freely  ex- 
pressed to  him  my  sentiments  concerning  Mr.  Gillet ;"  can- 
dour, as  well  as  the  dictates  of  friendship,  required  from 
Mr.  Jones,  that  «  he  should  communicate  his  intention  to 
me  before  he  gave  Mr.  G.  any  countenance."!  Both  these 
principles,  so  manifestly  correct,  Mr.  Jones  disclaimed.  '  I 
had  hitherto  kept  silence  with  him  on  the  painful  discovery 
which  I  had  made  of  his  injurious  representations  of  my 
character,  in  the  hope  that  by  condliation  and  forbearance 
his  impressions  would  be  corrected,  and  his  unfriendly  tem- 
per restrained,  if  not  totally  subdued.  But  when  I  found 
that  he  haughtily  disclaimed  principles  of  intercourse  be- 
tween us  so  essential  to  mutual  harmony,  and  so  conducive 
to  the  interests  of  the  Church ;  that  he"  construed  my  wish 
to  act  upon  these  principles  as  an  insolent  attack  on  his  in- 
dependence-^n  attempt  to  <*  lay  him  under  an  obligation  to 
act  agreeably  to  my  views,  and  to  consult  my  wishes  before 
he  should  acfij: — a  demand  that  he  should  "  ask  permission 
of  me — ^before  he  should  venture  to  proceed"^-— when  he 
thus,  as  it  were,  threw  in  my  face  the  ties  of  friendship, 
which  I  knew  he  had  long  before  secretly  broken,  I  confess 
I  felt  impelled  to  bring  to  his  view  the  subjects  which  I  had 
hitherto  hoped  it  would  not  be  necessary  to  discuss  between 
us. 

By  his  own  statement,  however,  my  introduction  of  them 
was  not  only  decorous,  but  conciliating.  I  commenced  with 
the  avowal  of  the  high  opinion  which  I  had  entertained  of 
him,  as  *<  a  man  of  correct  principles  and  upright  conduct  ;"(| 
and  proceeded  to  inform  him  of  the  cause  of  the  change  in 
my  sentiments  and  language."  (My  using  difterent  hui- 
guage  concerning  him,  respected  a  few  of  my  confidential 
friends  only;  the  statements  before  exhibited  show  how 
fon lined  and  moderate  I  was  in  my  representations.)  On 
my  alluding  to  <*  the  plan  laid  for  turning  me  out  of  the 
oflice  of  Secretary,"  instead  of  proceeding,  as  I  think  a 
spirit  of  conciliation  as  well  as  honour  and  candour  re- 
quired, to  that  temperate  and  frank  explanation  upon  the 
subject  which  my  remarks  had  invited,  he  peremptorily  i% 


•  Appeal,  p.  14. 
§  ih\A.:  p.  14. 


f  Ihid.  p.  l.S. 
M  IbM.  p.   15. 

9 


i  Tbiil.  p.  1.' 


)h\ 


^ 


ifii 


I 


m 


\^ 


I! 


(        ^        ) 

plied,  *•  That  i  deny,  and  put  you  to  the  ppooi*:"*  thus  more 
than  insinuating  that  I  had  brought  a  charge  against  him 
utterly  destitute  of  foundation.     And  on  my  attempting  to 
reply,  he  constantly  interrupted  me  by  the  same  angry  and 
haughty  demand,  «  Yes,  Sir,  I  hesitate  not  to  call  upon  you 
to  produce  the  proof."f     On  my  seeking  in  vain  his  own  ex- 
planation of  a  charge,  in  regard  to  which  I  could  produce 
the  proofs  which,  in  a  preceding  part  of  this  address,  I 
have  exhibited  to  you,  I  closed  this  part  of  our  conversation 
by  observing,  «<  it  is  not  worth  while  for  us  to  say  any  more 
on  that  subject."     Under  considerable  provocation,  my  ob- 
servations, as  stated  by  Mr.  Jones  himself,  indicated,  as  I 
humbly  conceive,  moderation  and  forbearance :  and  yet  he 
seems  to  think  that  he  always  had  "  the  advantage  over 
me,  arising  from  my  quickness  of  temper,  and  his  cool- 
ness of  deportment ;":):  advantages  which  I  most  certainly 
never  acknowledged  he  possessed  5   for  whatever  may  be 
my  faults  in  these  points,  I  have  none  to  acknowledge  in 
my  behaviour  to  Mr.  Jones.     I  then  adverted  to  the  charge 
which  he  had  made  to  Mr.  Bulkley,  of  my  having  falsely 
accused  Mr.  Fcltus.    But  when,  instead  of  receiving,  as  I 
hoped  and  expected,  some  explanation  or  palliation  of  the 
injurious  charge,  he  bol^y  admitted  it  in  its  full  extent,  i 
confess,  when  all  the  circumstances  under  which  he  had 
made  it,  rushed  upon  my  mind,  I  no  longer  felt  it  a  duty  to 
restrain  my  sensibility  at  an  accusation  as  cruel  as  it  was 
unfounded — I  assei'ted  it  "  to  be  a  base  calumny ,''   and 
closed  our  conversation  by  declaring,  «  I  have  no  further 
intercourse  with  you."     I  should  despise  myself  as  a  man 
if  feelings  of  indignation  at  a  most  unmented  and  cruel  as- 
sault upon  my  character,  by  an  individual  whom  I  had  re- 
garded and  vindicated  as  my  friend  and  brother,  had  not 
been  excited.     And  I  humbly  trust  I  manifested  no  sensibi- 
lity which  the  occasion  did  not  justify,  and  which  may  not 
be  sanctioned  by  tlic  Apostolic  injunction — ^"  Be  ye  angry, 
and  sin  not." 

I  have  said,  Gentlemen,  that  the  peculiar  circumstances 
under  which  Mr.  Jones  had  made  this  charge  principally 
excited  my  feelings.  I  put  aside,  for  the  present,  its  fals- 
ho(Kl,  which  I  shall  hereafter  fully  prove.  Its  truth  would 
wot  have  afFoi-ded  him  a  jusdrication.  He  was  absent  from 
I  lie  city  when  the  statement  relative  to  Mr.  Feltus  was 
sigped  by  all  the  Clergy,  and  presented  to  the  Bishop.  This 
statement  is  dated  June  12, 1807.    And  lifteen  months  after- 


*  Appeal,  p.  IJ. 


t  Hjid  p.  15. 


Ibid.  p.  1j. 


(    ey    ) 

wards,  in  September,  1808,  Mr.  Jones  asserted  to  Mr.  Bulk- 
ley,  that  I  "  had  drawn  up  a  number  of  charges  against  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Feltus  which  he  (Mr.  Jones)  was  persuaded  I 
could  not  substantiate."     It  should  be  recollected,  that  dur- 
ing all  this  period  I  had  not  the  most  distant  suspicion  of  his 
unfriendliness  to  me,  and  was  in  habits  of  unreserved  and 
intimate  intercourse  with  him.     As  he  never  saw  the  state- 
ment relative  to  Mr.  Feltus,  he  must  have  drawn  his  con- 
clusions concerning  it  only  from  rumour.    But  surely  before 
he  formed  a  persuasion  so  injurious  to  me,  as  that  I  had 
falsely  accused  one  of  my  brethren ;  and  still  more  before 
he  uttered  this  persuasion  to  others ;  common  justice,  com- 
mon humanity,  not  to  say  friendship,  required  that  he  should 
have  mentioned  the  injurious  report  to  me,  and  given  me  aii 
opportunity  of  explanation  and  defence.     It  appears  to  me, 
that  it  should  have  been  his  earnest  wish,  that  a  report  so 
injurious  to  the  character  of  a  man  who  lived  with  him  as  a 
friend  should  be  proved  false.     But  without  one  word  of  ex 
planation  from  me,  this  persuasion,  that  I  was  a  slanderer 
and  calumniator^  was  formed  in  his  mind,  and  was  commu- 
nicated, not  in  the  face  of  day  to  myself,  but  secretly  to  a 
brother  Clergyman,  with  a  view  to  injure  my  reputation. 


Tlie  interview  with  Mr.  Jones  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Harris^ 

was  immediately  subsequent  to  this  conversation  with  Mr. 
Gillet.  The  account  which  Mr.  Jones  has  given  of  the  cir- 
cumstances of  this  interview,  is  in  many  respects  discoloured 
and  erroneous.  It  is  represented  as  the  result  of  earnest  so- 
licitation on  my  part,  evidenced  particularly  by  extreme  "  agi- 
tation and  unhappiness,"  as  if  I  was  conscious  of  guilt  and 
fearful  of  consequences ;  and  it  is  stated  that  we  "  agreed 
to  bury  in  oblivion  whatever  had  passed,"*  on  my  "  express 
and  urgent  proposition."!  The  correctness  of  this  repre- 
sentation I  am  compelled  entirely  to  deny. 

I  shall  exhibit  in  the  first  instance,  the  following  inqui- 
ries on  these  points  which  I  addressed  to  Mr.  Harris,  with 
his  answers ;  and  shall  then  beg  leave  to  state  my  own  recol- 
lection of  all  these  particulars,  which  is  cleur  and  strong. 
I  must  beg  you  again  to  bear  in  mind  the  ciicum stances 
which  I  have  in  the  former  part  of  this  address  explained, 
under  which  Mr.  Harris  gave  Ills  testimony. 


Appen!,  p.  !0. 


f  A])pe;«!,  [)    r  I. 


)  » 


I- 1 


I'r 


i  ■ 


I ' 


\7  . 


«[ 


(     68     ) 

((iiest.  "  When  I  found  that  Mr.  Jones  concieved  that 
I  had  given  him  cause  of  offence,  did  I  not  discover  the 
deepest  regret,  and  express  to  you,  at  various  times,  mv 
earnest  de^sire  tp  conciliate  him,  disclaiming  all  intention 
to  injure  him,  and  all  consciousness  of  having  done  so- 
and  did  you  not  consider  my  conduct  in  these  respects 
as  coiTcct  and  Christian  ?" 

Ans.  "  Both  yourself  and  Mr.  Jones,  in  my  conversa- 
tions  with  you,  respectively  disclaimed  all  idea  of  any  in- 
tention to  injure  each  other,  and  each  appeared  to  consi- 
der himself  as  the  person  aggrieved.  As  to  the  misun- 
derstanding  between  you  I  well  remember  that  you  often 
said  that  it  was  to  you  a  subject  of  deep  regret.  Wlien 
you  consented  to  settle  all  differences  upon  the  plan  that 
was  afterwards  adopted,  I  did  say,  that  in  so  doing,  you 
discovered  a  Christian  disposition." 

quest.  «  Did  not  the  agitation  and  uneasiness  which 
on  this  occasion  Mr.  Jones  states  that  you  informed  him 
X  discovered,  proceed  as  you  conceived  from  the  know- 
ledge  of  unpleasant  feelings  towai-ds  me,  cherished  by  an 
individual  whom  I  had  always  supposed  my  friend,  and 
not  Irom  any  consciousness  of  misconduct  towai-ds  him  ?" 
*Am.'^  I  eannot  say  to  what  cause  the  apparent  agita- 
Uon  which  was  discoverable  both  in  yourself  and  Mr 
Jones  was  to  be  attributed." 

The  above  was  the  answer  originally  given  by  Mr.  Harris. 
He  alierwards  added  the  following : 

"  I  have  never  said  that  it  was  to  be  imputed  to  a  con-" 
seiousness  of  guilt  in  either,  or  that  1  ever  thought  it." 

(iiiest.  "  Did  the  reluctance  which  I  discovered  at  any 
time  that  Mr.  Jones  should  require  a  formal  investiga- 
tion of  any  complaints  which  he  conceived  he  had  against 
nie  proceed,  in  your  opinion,  from  any  apprehension  in 
me  that  the  issue  of  such  an  investigation  would  be  unfa- 
vourable to  myself;  or  from  a  wish  that  he  should  not 
consider  in  so  serious  a  light  matters  \vhich  in  my  iudc- 
ment  were  so  triiling  and  unworthy  of  notice?^*     *^  J  ^ 

.Ins.  "  According  to  my  best  recollection  what  Mr. 
Jones  staters  m  his  pamphlet,  p.  15,  is  the  most  correct  an- 
swer that  I  can  give  to  this  question,  viz.  *  If  Mr.  Jones 
insisted  on  bringing  ^h|-affair  before  the  Bishop,  you 
should  not  refuse —thg^ou  considered  the  matter  too 


nil 


(     69     ) 

trifling  to  be  worthy  of  such  notice  you  might  have  said, 
but  I  have  no  recollection  of  your  having  said  it." 

quest.  '*  Did  I  not  express  to  you  various  reasons  why 
I  conceived  such  a  serious  step  on  Mr.  Jones's  part  would 
be  injurious  only  to  himself  and  not  to  me  ?" 

Ans.  "  You  did  I  believe  mention  that  you  had  good 
reason  to  suppose  the  Bishop  would  at  least  be  as  favoura- 
bly inclined  towards  you  as  towards  Mr.  Jones,  or  some- 
thing to  that  effect." 

quest.  "Was  not  the  meeting  of  Mr.  Jones  and  myself 
at  your  house  on  the  13th  of  June  accidental  ?  When  he 
accidentally,  at  this  time,  visited  you,  w  as  I  not  engaged  in 
requesting  you  to  represent  to  him  that  if  he  entertained 
any  serious  intention  of  presenting  charges  against  me  to 
the  Bishop,  he  must  not  be  deterred  from  so  doing  by  any 
offers  of  conciliation  which  I  had  made  ?" 

Ans.  «  The  meeting  of  yourself  and  Mr.  Jones  at  my 
house  was  in  one  respect  accidental.  While  you  and  I 
were  conversing  on  the  subject  of  the  proposed  reconci- 
liation, which,  if  I  mistake  not,  was  also  the  subject  of 
our  conversation  the  day  before,  Mr.  Jones  came  to  my 
house,  and  being  informed  that  you  were  present,  he  im- 
mediately retired.  I  instantly  observed  that  the  present 
opportunity  must  be  improved,  that  a  more  convenient 
one  would  perhaps  never  occur ;  following  Mr.  Jones,  I 
overtook  him  soon  after  he  had  passed  the  Church :  I  then 
stated  to  him,  as  I  had  also  done  the  day  before,  the  con- 
ditions on  which  you  were  to  meet." 

quest.  ''  Was  there  any  express  agreement  entered 
into  at  this  interview  between  myself  and  Mr.  Jones  ? 
Was  the  affair  of  Mr.  Prentice  and  that  of  Mr.  Gillet 
mentioned  ?  And  was  not  your  understanding  of  this  in- 
terview rather  the  result  of  inference  and  construction 
than  of  any  thing  express  on  my  pait."  ^ 

Jhis.  «  When  you  and  Mr.  Jones  met  at  my  house 
there  was  nothing  that  I  recollect  said  of  the  affair  of  Mr. 
Prentice  and  of  Mr.  Gillet;  but  in  a  previous  conversation 
with  you,  I  distinctly  recollect  that  we  conversed  of  the 
Jdlair  of  Mr.  Prentice,  and  I  certainly  understood  from 
the  general  tenor  of  our  conversation  that  all  things  of  a 
disagreeable  nature  K^tween  yourself  and  Mr.  Jones  were 
to  be  buried  in  oblivion.  That  this  was  not  the  result  of 
mterence  and  construction,  I  am  not  prepared  to  say,  but 
only  this,  I  can  with  truth  aifirm,  that  such  was  then, 
and  such  is  now,  the  distinct  impression  on  my  mind." 


; 


(*< 


T: 


*N' 


I  i 


llf 


C   ra  ) 

Soon  al^ep  the  conversation  with  Mr.  Jones  on  the  subject 
of  Mr.  GiUet,  an  opportunity  oceumd  in  which  I  gave  Mr 
Harns  an  account  of  what  had  passed ;  and  wished  him  to' 
inform  Mr  Jones,  that  deeply  as  I  felt  my  self  aggrieved  bv 
him,  I  had  no  intention  of  breaking  off  that  intercourse 
which  our  official  stations  demanded,  but  was  even  desirou, 
that  this  intercourse  should  be,  as  it  formerly  was,  of  the 

Zlr.  W'"^-     ^  ^^'  ^"-  J^"^«'^  repre^ntations  are 
correct,  that  I  made  the  first  advances  in  this  business ;  and 
considering  the  treatment  which  I  had  received  from  him 
this  conduct  was  surely  honourable  to  myself,  and  affords  an 
additional  evidence  of  the  forbearance^  which  I  had  dh 
FKVi,^'-^^^'  distinctly  states,  that  "I  often  said,'' 
that  « the  misunderstanding  between  us,''  "was  to  me  a 
subject  of  deep  regret."#    The  feelings  of  hostility  manifest 
cd  by  a  man  who  was  my  colleague  and  whom  I  had  esteem- 
ed  my  tnend ;  the  most  unwarrantable  attacks  which  in  the 
indulgence  of  these  feelings  he  had  made  upon  my  character 
when  I  was  confiding  in  his  friendship  ;  the  unpleasanTcl 
sequences  which  the  indulgence  of  these  dispositions  on  Ws 
part  would  produce  both  in  regard  to  myself  and  the  Church, 
were  indeed  considerations  calculated  to  fill  me  with  -  deep 
regret        From  these,  and  not  from  the  timidity  of  consci 
ous  gui  t,  as  msinuated  by  Mr.  Jones,  proceeded  «  the  agita- 
tion  and  unhappiness"  which  I  discovered,  and  «  the  %\L 
which  I  contemplated  of  leaving  the  city  ;"  that  I  might  no 
longer  be  exposed  to  these  mortifying  coUisions,  and  by  re- 
tirement  might  escape  the  effect  of  dispositions  in  my^col 

Mr.  Harris  was  at  this  period,  according  to  his  own  declara- 
tion,t  in  habits  of  intercourse  with  me  much  more  affection- 
ate  and  conf  dential  than  with  Mr.  Jones,  I  recollect  Z 
fectly  well  that  I  made  him  the  depositary  of  feelings  wWch 

iTi'.n^r' a'^T/^^"  n  '  sought  to  vcut  iuto  the  bosom  of 
alriend.    And  I  recollect  perfectly  well  that  he  cordially 

ffiSn  T-^'IT,^  ^»d«/*^  commended  the  Christian 
lorbearance  which  I  discovered. 

^.v^*"*  1^^"*"';  ""*  ""^  request,  communicated  to  Mr.  Jones 
ni.>  feelings  of  regret  at  the  state  of  things  between  us,  and 
my  desire  for  conciliation.  Mr.  Harris  veiy  soon  infomcd 
me  (nearly  the  words  which  he  used  are  fresh  in  myTe 
Jiiory,  for  they  made  a  deep  impression  upon  me)  that  Mr. 
Jones  would  not  hear  of  conciliation  until  he  had  Yaid  my 
conduct  before  the  Bishop ;  and  that  with  this  view  he  h^d 


(  n  ) 

drawn  up  a  statement  of  several  insulting  acts  of  mine  to- 
wards him.     I  expressed  with  astonishment  to  Mr.  Harris 
my  entire  ignorance  of  what  Mr.  Jones  could  mean ;  that  I 
was  indeed  acquainted  with  the  injurious  attacks  he  had  se- 
cretly made  upon  my  character,  but  was  utterly  unconscious 
of  having  cherished  any  dispositions  towards  him  but  those 
of  sincere  friendship.     I  racked  my  memory  in  vain  for  in- 
stances  of  any  behaviour  in  me  towards  Mr.  Jones,  which 
he  could  construe  as  insulting.     And  at  length  I  found  from 
Mr.  Harris  that  he  had  read  the  statement  of  Mr.  Jones  5 
and  I  learnt,  with  astonishment,  that  he  (Mr.  Jones)  had 
recorded,  as  insults  to  him,  the  "  two  occurrences"  which 
had  taken  place  years  before,  and  which  he  has  placed  in 
the  front  of  his  <*  Appeal."    I  could  not  help  smiling  at 
the  idea,  that  Mr.  Jones  should  record  incidents  so  triflino*, 
and  make  them  so  serious  as  to  decline  conciliation  with 
me  until  he  had  laid  them  before  the  Bishop.      I  recol- 
lect distinctly  that  Mr.  Harris  agreed  with  me,  that  Mr. 
Jones's  conduct   was  unreasonable,   and  undignified^*   and 
that  the  course  he  contemplated  was  not  calculated  to  pro- 
duce conciliation.      On  this   account  we  both   wished   it 
to  be  avoided.     And  the  tenor  of  my  remarks  to   Mr. 
Harris  was—that  perfectly  conscious  of  the  rectitude  of 
my  conduct,  and  well  acquainted  with  the  Bishop's  senti- 
ments, I  could  have  nothing  to  fear  from  an  investigation 
—on  the  contrary,  that  if  I  wished  to  injure  Mr.  Jones,  I 
should  court  it-^for  I  had  (not  as  stated  by  Mr.  Jones,=t(= 
•*  some  pleas  to  offer  which  would  tend  to  prevent  a  cordial 
reconciliation,"  but)  serious  charges  to  present  against  him, 
of  most  injurious  attacks  upon  my  character,  which  I  pos- 
sessed the  means  of  fully  proving— but  that  if  this  course 
were  pursued,  matters  would  become  more  serious  between 
us  than  I  wished  them  to  be;  mutual  recriminations  would 
take  place,   which  would  increase  instead  of  diminishing 
the  difficulties  to  a  coi'dial  harmony  between  us;  and  per- 
liaps  too  these  differences  would  then  become  public,  a  con- 
sequence greatly  to  be  deprecated.     While,  therefore,  (Mr. 
Jones  acknowledges  tliis  fact  in  his  Appeal)  I  desired  Mr. 
Ifarns  to  iriform  Mr.  Jones,  that  if  "  he  insisted  on  bring- 
ing the  matter  before  the  Bishop,  I  would  not  refuse;"!  I 
thought  it  much  preferable  that  without  the  formality  of  an 
express  agreement,  there  should  be  a  mutual  understanding 
to  resume  our  friendly  intercourse,  and  to  treat  one  another 
as  if  nothing  had  happened.     What  was  thci-c  in  all  this 


*  Mr.  Harris's  statement 


Page  53  of  this  address. 


Appeal,  p.  15 


j  TbiJ. 


/' 


(     7:2     ) 

conduct  of  mine,  may  I  not  ask,  which  was  not  as  dignified 
and  prudent,  as  it  was  mild  and  conciliating? 

Of  any  other  plan  or  agreement  assented  to  by  me,  I  have 
not  the  most  distant  recollection.  On  the  contrary,  I  dis- 
tinctly recollect,  that  the  plan  of  meeting  and  discussing 
differences,  of  «  preliminaries  and  conditions,''  &c.  &c.  ap- 
peared to  me,  as  it  does  now,  to  he  as  incompatible  with 
true  dignity,  as  unfavourable  to  conciliation. 

The  day  following  this  conversation  with  Mr.  Harris,  an 
interview  took  place  between  Mr.  Jones  and  myself.  But 
this  interview  was  entirely  accidental,  and  in  no  respect  the 
result  of  premeditation  or  preconcert.  Mr.  Harris  acknow- 
ledges* that  this  meeting  was  "  in  one  respect  accidental.'* 
In  what  respect  it  was  not  accidental,  does  not  appear. 

After  Mr.  Harris  left  me,  I  reflected  that  the  solicitude 
which  I  had  discovered,  to  prevent  this  business  becoming 
so  serious  as  to  be  laid  before  the  Bishop,  might  flatter 
that  stateliness  of  character  which  it  appeared  to  me  Mr. 
Jones  assumed,  and  might  be  i*eferred  by  him  to  a  timidity 
in  me,  inspired  by  a  consciousness  that  my  conduct  would 
not  bear  investigation.     I  resolved  therefore  to  prevent  such 
inisconstruction.     The  next  morning  I  waited  on  Mr.  Har- 
ris.    I  recollect  the  place  (the  piazza  back  of  his  house) 
where  our  conversation  took  place  ;  so  strong  and  clear  is 
my  recollection  of  it,  and  of  all  the  circumstances  con- 
nected with  it.     I  stated  to  him  my  apprehensions  that  my 
conciliatory  overtures  would  be  misconstrued  by  Mr.  Jones. 
I  requested  him  immediately  to  see  Mr.  Jones ;  to  renew  to 
him  my  earnest  wishes  for  conciliation;  but  at  the  same  time 
distinctly  and  strongly  to  state  to  him,  that  if  he  had  ever 
entertained  a  serious  thought  of  calling  me  to  an  account 
before  the  Bishop,  he  must  not  be  deterred  by  any  overtures 
that  had  come  from  me.     At  this  moment,  we  discovered 
Mr.  Jones  retiring  from  the  house.     He  had  called  without 
knowing  of  my  being  there.     Mr.  Harris  instantly  proposed 
bringing  him  back,   and  improving  an  opportunity  which 
might  not  again  occur.     1  ineftectually  entreated  him  not  to 
go;  as  I  wished  Mr.  Jones  to  be  seriously  informed  of  my 
views,  in  regard  to  his  bringing  any  complaints  which  he 
mii^ht  have  against  me  before  the  Bishop.     Mr.  Harris  how- 
ever left  me  and  overtook  Mr.  Jones  near  the  Church.     A 
conversation  ensued  between  them.     If  Mr.  Harris  then 
stated  to  Mr.  Jones  any  conditions  on  which  we  were  to 
meet,  he  did  it  without  authority  from  me.    I  had  never 

•  Pa-'c  3Z  of  tl.Js  atidress. 


-— Ar 


iUJ< 


(     7S 


) 


4 


agreed  to  meet  Mr.  Jones.     Our  being  on  the  point  of  meet- 
ing together  at  this  time,  was  entirch  accidental;  and  I  was 
averse  to  Mr.  Harris's  bringing  him  back  when  he  was  retir- 
mg.    lam  mchned  to  believe  tliat  the  representations,  what- 
ever  they  were,  which  Mr.  Harris  then  made  on  the  subiect 
oV conditions  and  preliminaries,  arose  from  his  desire  to  abate 
the  stately  pretensions  of  Mr.  Jones ;  in  order  to  effect  that 
concihation,  to  which  it  appears,  by  his  account,  he  was  not 
much  disposed.     Mr.  Harris  finally  brought  Mr.  Jones  to 
me,  and  proposed  that  we  should  shake  hands,  and  treat  one 
another  as  if  no  unpleasant  occurrences  had  taken  place    To 
this  I  instantly  assented.    Mr.  Jones  then  began  to  enter  on  a 
vmdication  of  his  conduct.   I  observed,  that  I  ceHainlv  ouiiht 
to  suppose  he  was  conscious  of  the  rectitude  of  his  be'ha 
viour,  and  I  presumed  he  might  reasonably  impute  the  same 
consciousness  to  ine—and  that  I  thoisght  it  would  not  answer 
any  good  purpose  to  say  any  thing  on  the  subject.     He  then 
began  with  stating  rules  and  conditions  that  were  in  future 
to  be  observed  between  us.     To  tliese  I  clearly  recollect  I 
never  assented.     Some  of  them  were  ridiculous,  and  some 
of  them  would  have  been  disgraceful.     Expressly  to  have 
rejected  them  all  would  have  interrupted  the  conciliation 
.which  was  just  eftected— I  therefore  evaded  them.     4.nd  I 
weU  remember   that  my  impression,   in  regard   to  them 
all,  was  the  same  as  that  which  I  expressed  to  Mr.  Jones 
concerning  one  of  them,  the  treatment  of  the  young  men-, 
that  "  each  of  us  must  be  left  to  the  exercise  of  his  own 
discretion."*    I  never   "  entered,"   as  Mr.  Jones  asserts, 
"into  a  solemn  pledge  to  cancel  all  that  was  past."t     Mr. 
Harris  does  not  assert  in  his  statcinent,  that  at  this  in- 
terview  any  mention  was  made  of  conditions  previously  to 
Mr.  Jones's  joining  us,  or  afterwards.     He  expressly  ad- 
mits, that  "  nothing  was  said  of  the  affair  of  Mr.  Prentice 
and  of  Mr.  GiUet."^    He  expressly  admits  that  the  idea  of 
conditions  being  assented  to  by  me,  on  the  precedin-:  day,  he 
understood  from  "  the  general  tenor  of  our  conversation"-, 
and  "  IS  not  prepared  to  say  that  it  was  not  the  result  of  in- 
ference and  construction."      Anxious,  doubtless,  to  effect 
conciliation,  he  must  have  construed  my  agreement  jto  treat 
Mr.  Jones  as  if  no  unpleasant  occurrences  had  happened, 
into  an  agreement  that  I  would  bury  in  oblivion  whatever 
iiau  taken  place,  and  never,  however  necessary  to  self-de- 
fence,  bring  it  again  into  view.    Tliis  construction  was  not 
* 

->'(••  Hams  s  statement,  p.  69  ot  this  addres?. 

10 


/I 


w  iiiTautecl  by  uie,  and  it  would  have  been  in  the  highest  de- 
;*;i-cc  absurd  for  me  to  have  admitted  it.  I  declare,  that  the 
iirst  idea  of  its  being  supposed  that  at  this  interview  I  had 
entered  into  such  an  agree rrieot  with  Mr.  Jones,  arose  m  my 
mind  on  m^  i>erusal  of  his  "  Appeal.'* 

But  admitting  that  we  had  agreed  in  the  unlimited  sense 
contended  for  bj  Mr.  Jones  to  bury  all  past  occurrences  in 
oblivion,  what  was  his  conduct  ?  He  went  immediately  home, 
and,  June  i3, 1809,  the  very  day  this  interview  took  place  be- 
tween us,  penned  a  record  of  it.=*  And  very  soon  after  this 
interview,  in  a  conversation  with  the  Rev.  Mr.  Cooper,  of 
Yonkers,  he  .gave  him  the  same  representation  of  my  cha- 
i'acter  as  is  contained  in  his  pamphlet.f  How  injurious  tm 
me  that  representation  is,  it  is  unnecessary  to  state. 

I  have  been  thus  minute  in  the  detail  of  the  circumstances 
of  this  interview,  because  Mr.  Jones,  as  if  sensible  how  un 
justiiiable  were  his  attacks  upon  my  character,  is  unusually 
anxious  to  prove  that  "  whatever  might  have  been  the  na- 
ture of  these  measures,  and  however  culpable  their  ten- 
dency, it  was  all  cancelled  by  the  solemn  engagement  into 
which  we  entered  on  the  13th  of  June,  1809,  by  my  express 
proposition  ;"|  and  thus  he  hopes  to  fix  upon  me  the  charge  of 
a  breach  of  a  solemn  contract.  .  Admitting  this  contract  to 
have  taken  place,  it  surely  never  was  designed  to  preclude 
either  of  the  parties  from  the  developement  of  facts  necessary 
to  his  own  defence.  Besides,  Mr.  Jones's  injurious  treatment 
of  me  Avas  known  to  several  of  the  Clergy,  and  they  never 
entered  into  any  engagement  with  him  to  bury  it  in  obli- 
vion.    The  extraordinary  solicitude  which  Mr.  Jones  disco- 
vers  on  this  subject,  proves  that  he  is  sensible  how  import- 
ant these  facts  are  to  my  defence,  and  how  forcibly  they 
must  operate  to  his  own  crimination.     But  I  trust  the  pre- 
ceding detail  has  satisfactorily  proved  that  his  representa- 
tions on  this  point  are  erroneous.     I  solemnly  disclaim  bar- 
ing ever  entered  into  any  such  engagement     I  keep  ne 
journal.    But  really,  in  so  formal  and  solemn  a  business  as 
this  is  represented  to  have  been,  it  is  not  possible  that  it 
should  wholly  have  escaped  my  memory. 

Ever-  according  to  Mr.  Joneses  representation  of  this  in^ 
teleview,  what  is  the  contrast  which  it  exhibits  between  us  ? 
He  states,  "  that  I  expressed  my  regret  at  what  had  takeii 

,  r  }^J  ^**V*  ""^r^  '^'''K  ^/^"^  I?  75?»-^/P-  »C  ^ ''«  Appeal)  b«.rs  dnte  June 
J3,  1809;  and  suUstquently  (p.  28  of  his  Appeal)  he  iclcrs  to  this  hs  tlie  ii.v 
when  the  interview  took  place. 

t  See  Mr.  Coopei*s  statement,  p.  *i5  of  tlus  Jidurcss. 

?  Appeal,  p.  1^8. 


» 


(    7.5    ) 

place,"*  was  ^^  much  a^itated,'^  ^^  very  unhappy,  and  had 
It  very  much  m  contemplation  to  retire  from  the  Vity ;"  and 
in  order  to  obtain  a  reconciliation,  agreed  to  enter  into  en- 
gagements to  «  bury  in  oblivion  whatever  had  taken  place '' 
It  appears,  on  the  contrary,  that  there  were  no  advances  on 
his  part;  he  is  very  careful  to  state  that  he  made  *<  no  per- 
sonal  acknowledgments  or  concessions;"   and  at  length 
with  considerable  stateliness,  he  agreed  to  the  preliminaries 
and  conditions  expressly  proposed  and  urged  by  me.     It  is 
remarkable,  that  in  the  only  three  occm-renees,  durine  a 
period  of  eight  years,  adduced  by  Mr.  Jones,  as  prooff  of 
my  iiyurious  treatment  of  him,  I  made  advances  and  dis- 
played  tempers  (if  his  statements  are  correct)  the  most  ho 
nourable  to  me  as  a  man  and  a  Christian.    But  observe 
Gentlemen,  1  do  not  acknowledge  faults  which  I  never  com' 
mitted,  m  order  to  merit  the  praise  of  ingenuous  acknow- 
ledgments  after  the  commission  of  them. 


^u^T"  ^^''''  ^'  *^^^'  *^  ^P"^  '^^  *«*«'  i*  •Joes  not  appear 
that  Mr.  Jones  recorded  any  grievances  received  from  me 
1  thmk  the  mference  is  fair,  that  none  were  committed  by 
me.  On  April  r,  1810,  he  recordsf  a  conversation  which 
took  place  at  Dr.  Beach's,  "  on  the  20th  of  last  month  " 
And  even  then  it  seems  Mr.  Jones's  sensibility  to  his  own 
character  is  transferred  to  Dr.  Moore— for  his  record  re- 
lates  only  to  that  gentleman's  wrongs.  I  feel  it  also  some- 
what a  respite  to  be  able  to  turn  over  several  of  the  subse- 
quent  leaves  of  the  «  Appeal"  without  finding  any  accusa- 
tions against  myself.  And  the  charge  which  Sien  occurs  i«: 
what  Mr.  Jones  styles 

.1  ''dictation'^  to  him  on  the  subject  of  his  exchanging 
■^th  the  B^.  Br.  Moore  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Felhis. 

It  is  with  great  pain  that,  in  self-defence,  I  am  compelled 
to  animadvert  upon  the  conduct,  not  only  of  my  accusers, 
iyili  r.V^Ii  ^"""T  ^""^  ^^^  ^^'  Mr-  Feltus,  but  also  on 
m!  ^  u  ""  ^'''':  ^'*-  M^^'*^-  T^«  accusations  of  the  Rev. 
J^r.  J^  eltus  against  me  must  form  a  subject  of  distinct  con- 

eSrofThV  ^"^^^  ^'';  ""''  ^"^''^  and' myself,  until  the 
Close  01  the  summer  of  1808,  were  on  terms  of  very  friendly 
mtercourse.      During  this  period  allusions,  in  our  frank 


Apppa?,  p.  15. 


t  IbiH.  p.  SfJ. 


M'  im^i.cw' 


(     76     ) 

conversations,  were  soinefimes  made  relative  to  modes  of 
ppoct-eding  on  h,s  part,  which,  by  the  Clergy  in  general, 
were  deemed  irregular.  But  there  was  no  interruption  of 
our  harmony.  And  ,f  this  was  owing,  in  some  degree,  to 
the  discretion  and  mildness  of  Dr.  Moore,  I  must  also  elaim 
tlie  merit  of  some  portion  of  the  same  virtues.  In  the  sum- 
mer oi^lSOS  our  usual  friendly  intercourse  ceased.  On  this 
point  I  addressed  the  following  inquiry  to  Dr.  Moore,  to 
which  he  returned  the  annexed  reply. 

«  QjfMf.  Soon  after  that  Convention  (the  General  Con- 
vention at  Baltimore,  in  1S08)  did  not  our  former  friendly 
intercourse  cease,  and  did  you  not  state  to  me  in  an  ac- 
cidental conversation  on  the  sulyect,  that  you  were  in- 
formed by  a  friend,  that  I  had  been  opposed  to  your  an- 
pointment  to  St.  John's  Church,  and  that  I  was  openly 
your  iriend,  but  covertly  your  enemy? 

«  .am.  Soon  after  that  Convention  our  former  friendly 
intercourse  did  cease,  but  from  a  cause  very  remote  from 
any  circumstances  involved  in  the  present  "disagreement. 
1  perfectly  recollect  a  free  conversation  in  which  we  were 
engaged,  but  whether  it  was  accidental  or  not  you  must 
be  the  best  judge,  as  it  was  commenced  by  yourself.  The 
circumstance  of  St.  John's  Cliureh  was,  I'b^lieve,  brought 
into  view,  together  with  the  paHiculur  dfcumstanet 
which  had  produced  a  cessation  of  friendly  intereourse 
between  us ;  and  I  think  I  honestly  told  you,  that  I  was 
grieved  to  my  heart,  that  amidst  all  the  professions  of 
civility  with  which  you  had  favoured  me,  there  should 
have  existed,  on  your  part,  a  want  of  sincerity." 

A  short  time  previously  to  the  General  Convention  at 
Baltimore,  June.  1808,  air.  Jones  (b-tween  whom  and  Dr. 
Moore  no  previous  intimacy  subsisted)  paid  a  visit  to  him 
at  Staten-Island.  At  the  Convention,  which  soon  ensued, 
the  course  pursued  by  me  on  many  points  of  discussion  was 
deemed  by  Dr.  Moore  and  others  so  "  moderate  and  concili- 
ating, as  to  obtain  their  particular  approbation.  The  first 
day  on  which  Dr.  Moore,  on  his  return,  came  to  the  city,  he 
visited  D-.c  ;  and  appeared  more  than  usually  friendly  in  his 
manBcr.  That  night  he  visited,  for  the  first  time  I  believe, 
Mr.  Jones  at  his  own  house;  and  from  that  period  to  the  pre- 
sent Dr.  Moore  has  never,  to  my  knowledge  or  recollection, 
c^ed  on  me.  A  few  days  afterwards  I  met  him  accident- 
ally m  the  street,  and  then  he  stated  to  me,  that  the  cause 
ot  his  discontinuing  his  friendly  intereourse  was  the  insin- 


(    7r    ) 

eerity  of  my  profession  of  civilities,  manifested  partieu- 
lariy  by  my  oppositmn  to  his  appointment  to  St.  JoE 
Chureh;   information   of  wUch  he  had  received  from  I 
friend,  who  had  assured  him  that  I  was  covertly  his  eTemy 
whde  I  professed  to  be  friendly  to  him.  In  reply,  I  con  "e„dJd 
for  my  right  to  speak  of  men  and  things,  restrained  nnKK 
thedictatesoftruth,ofeharity,andofpKecTKu^ 
that  I  had  opposed  his  appointment  to  St.  John's.    SC in 
consequence  of  his  assurance  to  Dr.  Beach,  that  if  calkd  |o 
the  city  he  would  discontinue  some  irregularities    which 
gave  us  aU  concern,  I  agreed  to  speak  favourably  of  hTm  on 
this  occasion;  which  I  did  when  opportunities  offered.     One 
of  your  own  body  must  recollect  a  very  particular^oiversa 
tion  which  I  had  with  him,  in  which  I  advocated  Dr?M«ore 
1  hese  eireums  ances  are  no  otherwise  important,  tC,  as 
they  prove  the  incorrectness  of  the  conclus  on  pla  nly  to  be 

Tncc'lf  f  •"^..**'"-/"""^'^  statements,*  that  thLTcont^nS^ 
ance  of  friendly  intereourse  between  Dr.  Moore  and  myself 
^  not  take  place  until  his  settlement  in  this  city,  and  then 
ongmated  with  me.  On  the  contrary,  it  took  n  ace  mnr. 
than  a  year  previously  to  this  event,  L  was  an'ict  Tm. 

lariti?s%IS5  T  ^'"'^\**  discountenance  all  irregu- 
lanties.  Some  ot  these  may  be  very  serious  and  iniurious 
in  their  tendency,  against  which  it  would  not  b^  prudent  to 

tlZ  «:  „T  "*^^  "''''""'^-  ^"^  f-"^  ««  temEer  of  the 
times,  or  other  cireumstances,  even  the  exereise  of  disd 

feVtTh^?,""-''^'  "^"^  impracticable,  exeeldJnSy 
difficult,  or  highly  inexpedient.    Pointed  opposition  to  irre 
gularity,   which  is  at  all  times  a  duty  incumtent  on  the 
Clergy,  is  sometimes,  therefore,  the  only  secSwhich  tte 

By  these  considerations  has  my  conduct  been  reeulated 
to  Dr.  Moore.  That  he  was  guilty  of  irregiEties Is  cl„ 
fessed  throughout  the  whole  s'tatement  of  SS  Zk 
that  this  gentleman  considered  them  as  serious  and  hirfi"y 
njunous^is  evident  from  his  repeatedly  speaking  of  2S 
to  Dr.  Moore  «  in  terms  of  disapprobation."     He  S 

S  •  *         ^**  ^^  (^'■-  ♦^••"*'*)  should  «  break  ofi'  aU  of- 

«  b^in?liiw  i^PP**''  *"•'"•"''*  ^^  '^^'  of  Dr.Moore'I 

t)tm%  supposed  to  possess  a  tendencu  to  irregularity"  on 

hi*  coming  to  this  city ;  while,  in  another  part,K?iares! 

•  App«.l,  p.  75,  rg.  t  Ibid  p.  31  .„„  39.  tP,g<,4r. 


(     7H     ) 

"that  whalererirregjilarity  has  been  justly  op  professedly 
chap-ed  to  him  (Dr.  Moore)  since  his  residence  in  the  cit/ 
j»ras.  dunng  all  the  above  period"  (the  period  previously  to 
his  .•es.denco  in  the  city)  «  practised  in  a  ten-fold  degree."* 
Thus,  uregulanties  practised  in  a  ten-fold  degree  previ- 
ously to  a  certain  event  were,  at  the  time  of  this  event,  only 
mjrposeJ  tendenaes  to  irregtilarity.     Mr.  Jones  also  attri^ 
butes  the   continuance   of  these  irregularities   after  Dr 
Moore's  removal  to  New-York  to  the  circumstance  of  his 
brethren  not  assuming  towards  him  «  a  mild  and  friendlv 
deportment;"!  whereas  it  is  susceptible  of  proof,  that  im- 
mediately on  his  removal  into  the  city,  contrary  to  his  «  im- 
plied   promise  to  Mr.  Jones4  he  commenced  his  irregular 
proceedings.  ° 

i)r.  Moore  also  had  long  indulged  in  railing  against  his 
brethren,  and  particularly  against  myself.  I  am  Authorized 
by  Bishop  Moore  to  state  that  Dr.  Moore  spoke  to  him  of 
™  J  *1,^1  '»'"'»*i<»"S'  presuming,  overbearing  young  man. 
and  addcU."  we  shall  take  ca4  to  put  him  down.''  That 
he  and  others  did  «  talk  among  themselves"  of  the  means 
of  doing  It  IS  acknowledged  by  Mr.  Jones.$  And  I  think, 
that,  in  a  lormer  part  of  this  address  I  have  shown  that  a 
plan  for  this  purpose  was  formed,  and,  as  far  as  depended 
upon  themselves,  earned  into  execution. 

But  under  all  these  circumstances  of  pubUe  irreeularitr 
and  personal  hostility  to  myself,  my  conduct  to  Dr.  Moored 
so  tar  from  being  marked  with  violence,  was  mild  and  for- 
bearing. As  I  believed  that  he  honestly  thought  me  an  «  am- 
bitious, presuming,  and  overbearing  young  man,"  I  could  not 
feel  so  displeased  at  the  manly  attitude  of  opposition  wWch 
he  assumed,  as  at  the  more  cautious  and  secret,  but  more 
Jw  fn'!*"  1  '1-'^  of  another  person.  Mr.  LyeU  will  testify 
that  for  a  long  time  after  Dr.  Moore  discontinued  all  private 

mI,?.  *t,f"^"%.«»»t'"S  on  which  he  stood  with  Dr. 
?Sa*^?"^"'"v.'*'"'^JI'  reference  to  the  opportunity  wWch 
5rZ„ffh?rr  f  Tr'""S  with  Drl  Moore  on  the 
affairs  of  the  Church.  I  threw  no  obstacles  in  the  way  of 
the  di  charge  of  his  official  duties.  1  sought  in  no  degr^ 
to  dimmish  his  parochial  influence.  I  never  opened  mS 
in  unfavourable  terms  concerning  him  to  any  of  his  eoneT 
&;hp"!.fK""f  ?"*'*'?'»»  '^ho  had  left  it,  and  who  intro- 

n.eTiJJi^-lft**'*^  n'  !"*F''*""^*  *»  •"«•     Whenever  I 
met  him  I  paid  him  all  the  deference  and  eiviUty  to  which 


v^ 


*  Appeal,  p.  76.  I  Ibid.  p.  47.  *  Ibid.  p.  32. 


§  Ibid.  p.  28 


(     79     j 

from  his  age  and  standing,  he  could  think  himself  entitled. 
I  only  exercised  the  right,  possessed  by  evevy  Clergyman,  and 
in  itself  no  cause  of  offence,  of  withholding  an  interchange  of 
official  duties.  I  even  repeatedly  discountenanced  a  proposi- 
tion that  the  Clergy  should  enter  into  an  agreement  on  this 
subject.  From  Mr.  Jones's  own  statement,*  it  appears  that  I 
opposed  a  suggestion  by  Dr.  Beach  to  Mr.  Harris,  Mr.  Jones 
and  myself,  which  seemed  to  contemplate  an  agreement 
that  "  he  (Dr.  Moore)  should  be  left  to  himself,  and  that 
we  should  have  nothing  to  do  with  him;"  and  I  expressly 
contended  that  "  in  that  respect  every  one  ought  to  be  left 
to  his  own  discretion."  I  resisted  taking  the  ground  against 
Dr.  Moore  deemed  so  obnoxious  by  Mr.  Jones,  until  an  ^«  ex- 
treme case"  occurred ;  and  this  I  must  beg  leave  to  state. 

The  Church  had  suffered  severe  imputations  of  laxity 
of  discipline,  and  of  permitting  unworthy  Clergymen  to 
officiate  within  her  pale ;  and  Dr.  Moore  himself  had  fre- 
quently indulged  in  a  very  free  style  of  remark  upon  this 
subject.  Besides,  the  exercise  of  discipline  is  a  sacred  duty 
enjoined  by  the  head  of  the  Church,  and  essential  to  her  pu- 
rity and  prosperity.  <^  To  put  from  us  that  unworthy  per- 
son," is  a  duty,  the  neglect  of  which  can  only  be  excused 
by  the  impracticability  of  successfully  and  usefully  discharg- 
ing it.  The  very  first  act  of  discipline  exercised  upon  a 
Clergyman  in  this  State  met  with  Dr.  Moore's  decided  op- 
position; and  he  united  with  the  Rev.  Mr.  Feltus,  in 
zealous  efforts  to  aid  this  Clergyman  in  his  attempts  to  sub- 
vert the  discipline  of  the  Church.  And  yet  no  person  had 
spoken  in  more  severe  terms  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Ireland  than 
Dr.  Moore.  The  pretence  of  Mr.  Ireland  for  a  re-hearing, 
that  a  witness  had  acknowledged,  after  the  trial,  that  his 
testimony  was  incorrect,  was  absurd  in  the  extreme.  This 
witness  declared  to  me  that  the  only  part  of  his  testimony 
which  he  discovered  was  incorrect,  was  an  unimportant  par- 
ticular, founded  oti  Jiearsay.  The  principal  charges  against 
Mr.  Ireland,  viz.  the  habitual  practice  of  usurij^  and  a  vio» 
lent  assault  upon  one  of  his  Vestry,  he  acknowledged  in  his 
defence  before  the  Board  of  Clergy  who  sat  upon  his  trial.; 
but  he  endeavoured  completely  to  justify  the  former  act,  and 
to  palliate  the  latter.  Dr.  Moore  and  Mr,  Feltus  cannot  be 
supposed  to  be  ignorant  that  ecclesiastical  usage  knows  no 
instancy  of  a  reversal  of  a  sentence  of  degradation.  And 
still  less,  could  they  have  been  ignorant,  tbat  the  canons  of 
their  own  Church  declare,  that  after  the  Board  of  Clergy 

*  Appeal,  p.  SO. 


(    «o    ) 

have  presented  the  result  of  the  trial  to  the  Bishop,  with  the 
sentence  which  in  their  opinion  slioiild  be  pronounced,  his 
"  judgment  in  the  case  is  to  be  linal."*  The  success  there- 
fore, of  Mr.  Ireland's  attempts,  in  which  Dr.  Moore  and 
Mr.  Feltus  zealously  aided  him,  would  have  been  the  com- 
plete prostration  of  the  authority  of  the  Church. 

Under  such  circumstances,  any  longer  to  have  hesitated  to 
take  the  ground  with  Mr.  Jones  on  the  subject  of  exchanging 
with  these  gentlemen,  which  had  been  often  before  proposed 
by  others,  would  have  been  in  me  a  shameful  dereliction  of 
my  duty  to  the  Church  when  her  authority  and  discipline 
were  threatened.  In  my  interview  with  him,  it  was  sincere- 
ly my  endeavour  to  use  a  manner  and  style  of  remark  as 
conciliating  as  possible ;  aware  as  I  perfectly  was  of  the  ex- 
treme sensibility  of  Mr.  Jones  to  any  thing  which  he  consi- 
dered as  an  invasion  of  his  independence.  This  solicitude 
on  my  part  is  evident  from  his  own  account  of  the  conversa- 
tion discoloured  as  it  is.  I  reminded  him  of  my  past  forbear- 
ance, notwitlistanding  Dr.  Moore's  disrespectful  style  of 
conversation  concerning  myself,  as  well  as  his  public  irregu- 
larities ;  and  stated  expressly,  as  the  sole  reason  for  changing 
my  ground,  the  "  extreme  case'*  which  had  recently  occur- 
red, the  zealous  co-operation  of  Dr.  Moore  and  Mr.  Feltus 
with  Mr.  Ireland.  Their  conduct  in  thus  paralizing  instead 
of  strengthenin.:j;  the  arm  of  discipline,  called,  I  thought,  for 
the  decided  condemnation  of  all  their  brethren.  I  stated  to 
him,  that  associated  as  we  were  in  the  same  collegiate  charge, 
delicacy  would  dictate  to  him  not  to  introduce  into  our 
pulpits  Clergymen  known  to  be  disagreeable  to  all  his  col- 
leagues ;  but  that,  waving  these  considerations,  so  impro* 
per  was  the  conduct  of  Dr.  Moore  and  Mr.  Feltus  in  the  bu- 
siness of  Mr.  Ireland,  that  exchanges  with  them  would 
countenance  attempts  to  subvert  discipline;  and  he  must 
thei'efore  expect,  that  duty  to  the  Church  would,  in  this  case, 
prevent  us  from  continuing  our  usual  friendly  intercourse 
with  him.  I  repeatedly  disclaimed  all  idea  of  dictating  to 
him  in  the  softest  tone,  language  and  manner  that  I  could 
assume  ;  assuring  him  that  this  communication  was  made  to 
him  solely  from  motives  of  candour,  i)erfectly  aware  that 
he  would  exercise  his  own  judgment  and  pursue  his  own 
course  of  conduct ;  adding  hually,  in  a  style  of  compliment 
which  was  really  sincere — •*  I  know  you  too  well  Mr.  Jones, 
to  suppose  that  you  are  to  be  driven  from  your  purpose.*'! 

•  Canons  of  the  Convention  of  t1 »  Church  in  Uiis  State,  rel'^tive  to  the  trial  of 
Clergymen. 
t  Appeal,  p.  45.     Mr.  Jooes  here  acknow  leiljjes  that  I  used  these  very  wavdt. 


'TK 


m 


.^% 


(     8i     ) 

On  mentioning,  a  short  time  subsequently,  to  a  friend  of  his, 
that  I  had  made  this  remark,  he  appeared  to  regret  that  I  had 
used  an  expi'ession  which  was  calculated  to  flatter  that  idea 
of  his  owneonsequence,  which  api>eared  to  be  the  foible  of 
;  Mr.  Jones. 

Mr.  Jones  endeavours  to  M  on  me'*  the  imputation  of 
conduct  "  directly  contradictory"  towai'ds  Dr.  Moore,  be- 
fore and  since  his  residence  in  the  city.    During  the  former 
period,   when  there  was  a  friendly  interchange  of  official 
duties  between  Dr.  Mooi'e  and  myself,  Mr.  Jones  asseits, 
that  Br.  Moore's  «  irregularities  were  practised  in  a  tenfold 
degree"  more  than  since  his  residence  in  the  city,   when 
this  interchange  was  discontinued.     But  during  the  former 
period,  when  an  opportunity  occurred,  I  often  made  allu- 
sions in  conversation  with  Dr.  Moore  to  these  irregularities, 
and  he  well  kne^v  my  decided  opposition  to  them.     Besides) 
this  public  as  well  as  private  friendly  intercourse  between 
us  was,  as  I  have  already  stated,  discontinued  not  by  my- 
self, but  by  Dr.  Moore  several  months  before  his  settlement 
in  the  city.    And,  after  all,  is  it  not  obvious,  that  irregu- 
larities  which  expediency  and  a  desire  to  conciliate  may  pre- 
vent us  from  directly  opposing,  when  they  occur  in  situa- 
tions  where  tlie  general  injury  to  the  Church  is  compara- 
tively small,  may  demand  decided  opposition  in  stations  of 
greater*  notoriety  and  influence,  and  when  the  injurious  re- 
suits  to  the  Church  are  likely  to  become  much  more  serious  ? 


My  conduct  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Feltus 

is  the  subject  of  strong  animadversion  by  Mr.  Jones,  and 
very  particularly  detailed  by  Mr.  Feltus  himself,  in  the 
statement  «  under  his  own  hand."  By  Mr.  Jones,  I  am  ac- 
cused  of  treating  Mr.  Feltus  "  with  injustice  and  cruelty  ,-"f 
and  Mr.  Feltus  accuses  me  of  *<  persecution  and  mal  treat- 
ment" of  him;  of  the  «  vilest  and  most  slanderous  impu- 
tations,":|:  and  of  not  having  the  •*  honesty  of  a  gentleman, 
nor  the  candour  and  piety  of  a  Christian,  to  retrace  my 
steps,  and  to  acknowledge  my  mistakes."^  These  very  se- 
verc  general  charges,  supported  by  speciflc  accusations  of 
the  most  serious  nature,  must  be  my  excuse  for  using  a 
plamness  in  my  statements  with  respect  to  this  eentleman. 
very  repugnant  to  my  feelings. 

•  Appeal,  p.  75.         f  iWd.  p.  77.         t  IWd.  p.  89.         i  Ibid.  p.  1^4. 

41 


(  ^2  ) 

Mr.  Jones  considers  the  phrase,  applied  by  myself  ail4 
others,  "  a  man  in  rvhom  no  cmijidence  is  to  be  placed,"  as 
the  eant  phrase  by  i^hieh  every  one  is  cried  down  who  is  not 
found  "  yielding  und  submissive."*    This  phrase,   so  ob- 
noxious in  me,  is  daily  used  with  impunity  in  the  intep- 
eourse  of  the  world.    No  secular  concern  could  be  trans- 
acted with  safety  or  success,  if  an  analysis  of  the  charac- 
ters of  individuals,  and  fi'ce  conversation  concerning  them 
among  those  engaged  in  the  management  of  this  concern^ 
were  not  permitted.    There  is  no  man  who  does  not  find  it 
absolutely  necessary  to  act  upon  this  principle  in  the  stffair^ 
of  the  world.    And  surely  in  ecclesiastical  matters,  where 
those  qualities  that  are   calculated   to  excite   distrust  of 
their  possessor,  are  even  more  dangerous  and  injurious  than 
in  tentporal  interests,  the  exercise  of  this  principle  is  mor^ 
justifiable.     Care  indeed  must  be  taken  that  it  be  exercised 
only  for  good  reasons,  and  only  to  a  necessary  extent.     That 
this  rule  was  observed  by  me  in  my  conduct  to  the  ^v- 
Mr.  Feltus,  I  am  compelled  in  self-defence  to  show. 

This  gentleman,  though  according  to  his  own  declaratioa 
originally  a  Baptist,  officiated  for  a  long  time  among  th^ 
Methodists,  and  was  considered  one  of  their  number.    Hig 
denial  that  he  ever  was  a  Methodist,  though  he  officiated 
among  them,  and  is  said  by  many  respectable  ministers  and 
others  of  that  communion,  to  have  belonged  to  their  society, 
was  ceilainly  not  calculated  to  inspire  me  with  confidence 
in  him.     Nor  was  this  likely  to  be  excited  by  my  knowledge 
of  the  fact,  that  while  a  preacher  among  the  Methodists^ 
he  was  distinguished  for  his  violent,  and  sometimes  abusive 
language  concerning  the  Episcopal  Church.     The  convic- 
tion, that  he  was  not  "  to  be  depended  on,"  if  I  may  be  al- 
lowed the  phi'ase,  was  fui'ther  confirmed  by  the  opinions  of 
many  i*espectable  persons   of  the   Methodist  communion, 
who  had  full  opportunity  of  knowing  his  character.    They 
spoke  of  him  as  *^  a  man  in  whom  no  confidence  was  to  be 
placed,"  pompous  and  violent  often,  but  hollow  and  insin- 
cere in  his  professions.    I  was  satisfied  that  this  represen- 
tation was  not  owing  to  resentment  at  his  having  takeu 
orders  in  the  Church ;  because  the  same  persons  spoke  in 
high  terms  of  others  Who  had  received  Episcopal  ordina- 
tion. 

These  traits  of  character  did  not  change  with  a  change  of 
communion.  Even  while  a  candidate  for  orders  in  the  Church, 
I  am  credibly  informed^  he  was  considered  by  at  least  som^ 

*  Appeal,  p.  1. 


•CI 


(     «3     ) 

Atoolig  whom  he  Officiated  in  the  capacity  of  a  L^y  Reader, 
as  ready  to  attach  himself  to  any  communion  that  might  suit 
bis  purpose  ,•  and  was  in  the  practice  of  mutilating  the  litur- 
gy, and  introducing  extempore  prayer.  After  his  ordinatioh, 
the  same  practice  continued.     His  conduct  was  thus  at  vari- 
ance with  the  high  tone  with  respect  to  Church  principles 
and  to  the  order  and  the  worship  of  the  Church,  which  o^ 
some  occasions,  and  with  some  persons  he  assumed ;  whil^ 
with  others  he  could  accommodate  himself  to  a  much  lower 
grade  of  Church  principle.     Tliough  sometimes  the  loud 
advocate  of  oi-der  and  panegyrist  of  the  liturgy ;  in  his  own 
congregation  in  New-Jersey,  he  originated  private  meetings 
not  sanctioned  by  this  order,  and  where  this  liturgy  was  laid 
aside.    And  for  some  time  after  his  settlement  at  Brooklyn, 
he  could  omit  parts  of  the  service  required  to  be  used,  as 
suited  his  purpose.    These  were  not  solitary  acts  into  which 
the  most  correct  might  be  occasionally  betmyed,   or  for 
which  the  force  of  some  imperious  circumstances  could  bt 
urged  as  an  apology;  but  they  were  frequentlv  practised  by 
him  for  years;  even  after  the  highest  principles  as  a  Churoh- 
man  were  on  certain  occasions  avowed  by  him. 

The  traits  of  character  imputed  to  him  by  many  of  his  for^ 
Bier  associates  of  being  "  pompous  and  ostentatious,"  were 
displayed  by  circumstances  which,  I  think,  cannot  be  known 
to  any  persons  of  delicate  and  correct  minds,  without  exci tine 

freat  disgust.    At  the  Convention  of  the  Church  in  New- 
1  ^^^li  at  Elizabeth-Town,  before  his  settlement  at  Brook. 
lyn,  Mr.  Feltus  was  called  on  to  preach  ;^not  on  occasion  of 
the  meeting  of  the  Convention,  or  on  any  other  particular 
occasion,  but  when  an  ordinary  sermon  would  answer.    He 
pretaced  his  discourse,  containing  nothing  peculiar  to  the 
occasion,  with  an  apology  for  the  short  notice,  as  if  he  had 
prepared  the  sermon  after  he  was  requested  to  preach,     ft 
was  not  presumed  that  he  would  leave  home  at  such  a  ti»ne 
m  the  expectation  of  visiting  New-York,   without  being 
well  stocked  with  his  best  discourses.    The  design  was  too 
apparent  to  impress  the  congregation  with  a  high  sense  of 
tne  promptness  and  ease  with  which  he  could  prepare  a  ser- 
mon at  a  few  hours  notice.    A  discourse  from  the  same  text 
was  atew  days  afterwards  preached  by  him  at  New- York 

fu  4  4U  5.  ^'  ^"^  *^^  presumption  is  therefore  stron*» 
that  the  discourse  had  been  previously  prepared.  But  -Jl 
mittmg  the  fact  of  its  rapid  preparation,  to  have  stated  tho 
circumstance  to  the  congregation  was  an  attempt  to  make 
tne  altar  ot  the  sanctuary  serve  the  purposes  of  vaMty  and 
adulaUon  that  cannot  but  excite  the  greatest  disgust.   1  w  efl 


(     84     )      . 

recollect  the  disgust  which  was  expressed  to  me  hy  a  person 
who  heard  Mr.  Feltus,  on  another  occasion,  inform  a  con- 
gregation that  the  text  on  which  he  was  to  address  them 
was  mentioned  to  him  on  his  way  to  the  Church,  with  a  re- 
quest that  he  would  preach  from  it.  Vanity  is  afoihle  when 
indulged  in  the  circles  of  private  friendship ;  hut  when  it 
intrudes  into  the  sanctuary  ;  when  it  raises  its  pi*etensions  in 
the  presence  of  God ;  when  it  pollutes  our  *<  sacred  things  f^ 
to  palliate  it  with  this  appellation  would  be  charity  greatly 
misapplied. 

It  cannot  he  more  painful  for  any  person  to  read,  than  it 
is  for  me  to  make  this  detail.  The  duty  of  self-defence 
must  be  my  apology.  A  person  charged  with  an  unjustifi- 
able distnist  of  the  character  of  another  can  vindicate  him- 
self only  by  exhibiting  the  series  of  circumstances  that  ex- 
cited and  gradually  strengthened  this  distrust.  Circum- 
stances, which,  few  and  single,  appear  trifling,  and  unwor- 
thy of  notice,  when  numerous  and  connected  assume  greater 
importance,  and  constitute,  perhaps,  the  best  standard  by 
which  to  appreciate  character.  The  above  circumstances 
relative  to  Mr.  Feltus  were  not  hunted  up  by  me  to  answer 
a  present  purpose.  With  the  exception  of  one  I  have  been 
long  acquainted  with  them.  Many  of  them  were  known  to 
others  of  the  Clergy ;  and  they  justified  us  in  the  conclusion^ 
that  *<  confidence  was  not  to  be  placed  in  Mr.  Feltus."  In 
secular  concerns  no  person  would  hesitate  to  consider  simi- 
lar circumstances  as  evidence  that  '<  a  man  was  not  to  be 
dcfiended  on ;"  and  that  he  might  be  dangerous  in  propor- 
tion to  the  influence  which  he  obtained.  In  the  above  cir- 
cumstances originated  the  distrust  of  Mr.  Feltus^  enter- 
tained by  myself  and  others. 

But  he  dates  the  origin  of  what  he  styles  *^  my  persecu- 
tion" of  him  to  April,  1806;  and  assigns  it  to  the  unwor- 
thy cause  of  mortified  pride,  at  his  not  receiving  *'  a  re- 
commendation from  me  in  favour  of  a  candidate  for  oitlers, 
as  a  substitute  for  the  personal  attendance  or  examination 
of  that  candidate."  'I'his  is  mere  conjecture.  He  does  not 
pretend  to  give  any  proof  of  it.  He  "  heard"  it ;  but  how 
he  "  discovered"  it,  he  does  not  explain.  His  introduction 
of  this  business  may  prove  his  great  solicitude  to  enforce 
the  Canons;  but  what  it  proves  against  me  I  cannot  see. 
The  idea  of  being  ofiVnded  at  Mr.  Feltus  on  the  occasion 
which  he  alleges  never  entered  into  my  mind.  Nor  did  I 
know  any  thing  of  this  charge  against  me  until  I  read  the 
<<  Appeal."  How  totally  unfounded  his  accusation  is  will 
appear  from  the  following  statement. 


>^ 


(     85     ) 

^-  One  charge  brought  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Feltus  against 
Dr.  Hobart  is,  that  his  unfriendly  and  persecuting  treat- 
ment  commenced  at  the  time  when  Mr.  Feltus  refused 
to  sign  a  testimonial  in  my  favour;  that  great  ofience 
was  given  to  Dr.  Hobart  *^in  not  admitting  his»letteF 
to  the  Standing  Committee  of  New-Jersey  in  my  behalf, 
as  an  excuse  for  not  attending  the  Standing  Committee 
in  person,  when  I  applied  for  a  testimonial  for  Priest's 
orders. 

"  That  Dr.  Hobart  was  displeased  with  Mr.  Feltus  fop 
the  ground  he  took  in  this  business  is  a  mistake ;  for  I  do 
solemnly  declare,  that  when  I  communicated  the  result 
of  the  meeting  of  the  Committee  to  Dr.  Hoba^rt,  as  I  did 
(if  I  mistake  not)  on  the  very  day  that  I  received  my  tes- 
timonial, he  promptly  expressed  his  approbation  of  Mr. 
Feltus's  conduct ;  declaring  that  he  considered  it  cM)rrect, 
and  that  he  should  have  acted  with  Mr.  Feltus  on  the 
same  ground. 

«  JOHN  C.  RUDD,  Rector  of 

«  St.  John's  Church,  EHzabeth-Town. 
*^  June  10,  1811." 

You  may  now  judge  what  authority  Mr.  Feltus  could 
have  had  for  his  accusation—"  That  Dr.  Hobart's  letter  was 
not  received  as  all-sufficient  I  soon  after  heard  and  disco- 
covered  gave  serious  oflcnce  to  the  Reverend  author;  and 
from  that  period  I  have  dated  his  incessant  and  increasing 
persecutions." 

But  did  the  knowledge  of  these  traits  in  the*  character  of 
Mr.  Feltus  induce  me  to  oppose  his  call  to  Brooklyn  ?  To 
none  of  the  Vestry  or  congregation  did  I  mention  my  sus- 
picions concerning  him.  I  never  directly  or  indirectly  op- 
posed his  call  to  Brooklyn ;  nor  do  I  believe  it  was  opposed 
by  any  of  the  Clergy.  The  sheet  of  fsdse  accusations,  as 
he  styles  a  certain  paper  presented  to  the  Bishop  concern- 
ing him,  was  founded  on  a  circumstance  which  took  place 
subsequently  to  his  caU  to  Brooklyn,  while  his  acceptance 
of  this  call  was  uncertain. 

The  origin  of  this  paper  of  accusations,  and  the  cause 
and  nature  of  my  agency  in  it  will  appear  from  the  following 
statement. 

**  In  the  month  of  June^,  1807,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Feltus  vi- 
sited  New-York.  The  morning  of  his  departure  from 
the  city  I  was  waited  upon  by  several  gentlemen,  friends 
of  Mr.  Feltus,  in  the  congregation  of  Christ  Church. 


(  *6  ) 

They  expressed  their  most  earnest  deterihinfttion^  if  pos- 
sible, to  have  the  ministerial  services  of  this  gentleman; 
and  required  that  for  this  purpose  I  sh6uld  consent  to  his 
becoming  joint  Rector.  The  oflSce  of  Assistant  Minister 
bad' been  befdre  offered  to  Mr.  Feltus,  which  he  had  de- 
elined,  declaring  that  no  office  but  that  of  joint  Rector 
would  be  accepted  by  him.  I  informed  the  gentlemen 
who  waited  on  me,  that  Mr.  Feltus  had  assured  me  the 
evening  before,  that  he  had  received  a  call  from  Brook- 
lyn,  which  he  thought  he  should  accept,  and  that  I  was 
confident,  therefore,  he  would  not  come.  They  repli- 
ed, that  "  they  had  settled  that  business  with  him,  and 
that  he  had  assured  them  he  would  give  Christ  Church 
the  preference,  if  he  could  be  joint  Rector." 

«  Immediately  on  their  leaving  me  I  waited  on  Bishop 
Moore,  and  informed  liim  of  the  above  circumstance. 
He  observed,  that  it  seemed  as  if  they  were  resolved,  in 
some  way  or  other,*  to  give  me  trouble.  He  inquired  if 
1  had  seen  Dr.  Beach  or  Dr.  Hobart— ^n  my  replying 
that  Dr.  Beach  was  not  in  the  city,  but  that  I  was  on 
my  way  to  see  the  latter  gentleman,  who  was  confined  to 
his  house  by  indisposition,  he  agreed  to  accompany  me. 
We  found  Dr.  Hobart  so  unwell  that  he  was  confined  to 
his  bed.  The  circumstances  above  detailed  were  men- 
tioned. It  was  agreed  that  a  statement  of  the  particulars 
in  Mr.  Feltus's  conduct  which  were  deemed  improper 
should  be  presented  to  the  Bishop,  and  sent  to  him  and 
to  the  Vestry  at  Brooklyn.  Dr.  Hobart's  agency  in  the 
business  arose  from  the  above  interview  of  the  Bishop 
and  myself  with  him. 

*'  THOMAS  LYELL. 

^<  JVfew-Forfe,  July  31,  1811." 

^. The  above  statement,  Gentlemen,  will  show  how  unjust 
r%  the  impression  which  Mr.  Feltus  endeavours  to  produce, 
that  in  this  business  of  bringing  against  him  "  false  accu- 
sations" I  discovered  extraordinary  zeal.  I  was  confined  to 
a  sick  room.  The  paper  was,  indeed,  drawn  up  by  mc, 
and  sent  by  me  to  the  rest  of  the  Clergy.  Some  of  them 
were  previously  acquainted  with  the  facts',  and  immediately 
signed  the  paper.  As  far  as  I  can  recollect,  I  address^  a 
note,  which  Mr.  Feltus  styles  a  «  circular,"  only  to  one 
Clergyman ;  and  this  was  carried  to  him  by  a  young  gentle- 
man, a  student  at  College,  who  happened  to  call  on  me  w  hen 
I  was  confined  to  the  house  by  indisposition.  Mr.  Feltus 
observes,  that  this  <«  young  gentleman  used  his  best  persna- 


r^ 


rH 


(     8^     ) 

sions  with  those  who  hesitated  to  annex  their  signatures." 
Surely  no  Presbyter  of  the  Church  could  have  been  induced 
to  sign  a  paper,  of  the  truth  of  the  contents  of  which  h^ 
had  any  doubts,  by  the  "  persuasions  of  a  young  gentle- 
inan,"  a  Junior  at  College. 

The  follow  ing  is  this  "  sheet  of  false  accusations,"  printed 
from  the  original,  with  which  Bishop  Moore  has  furnished 
me.  You  will  bear  in  mind  the  circumstances  which  gav^ 
rise  to  it,  as  detailed  in  tbe  preceding  statement  of  Mb 
Lyell. 

«  THE  RIGHT  REV.  BISHOP  MOORE. 

"  JVeic-rorfe,  June  12,  1807. 
«  RiGQT  Rev.  Sib, 

"  The  undersigned  Presbyters  of  your  Diocese  beg  leave 
respectfully  to  call  your  attention  to  the  following  cir- 
cumstances ;  with  which  they  presume,  however,  you  are 
already  acquainted* 

<<  At  tbe  election,  a  few  years  ago,  of  a  Rector  of  Christ 
Church,  in  this  city,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Feltus  was  held  up  for 
that  office,  and  was  supported  by  considerable  influence. 
As  the  election  eventuated  in  the  choice  of  another  per- 
son, it  was  to  be  presumed,  that,  from  considerations  of 
delieaey,  Mr.  F.  would  be  remarkably  circumspect  in 
his  future  deportment  towards  that  congregation,  lest  the 
influence  which  he  possessed  in  it  might  tend  to  excite 
dissatisfaction  and  division.  At  a  visit,  however,  to  this 
city,  a  short  period  after  the  election,  his  conduct  was 
not  only  a  violation  of  one  of  the  Canons  of  the  Church, 
but  directly  tended  to  excite  invidious  comparisons  be- 
tween himself  and  the  Rector  of  Christ  Church,  to  the 
disadvantage  of  the  latter.  At  his  recent  visit  he  made 
the  most  solemn  protestations  to  you.  Right  Rev.  Sir,  of 
his  sorrow  for  any  irregularity  of  which  he  might  have 
been  guilty,  and  of  his  disposition  and  determination,  in 
every  way  in  his  pow(er,  to  promote  the  comfort  and  in- 
4uence  of  the  Rector  of  Christ  Church.  Towards  this 
|;entleman  his  conduct  was  apparently  frank  and  cordial ; 
and  with  him,  as  well  as  with  you,  Sir,  the  day  before  his 
departure,  he  freely  conversed  on  the  subject  of  aceept- 
ing  a  call  which  he  had  received  from  the  Church  at 
Brooklyn.  On  the  morning  of  his  departure,  several  per- 
sons of  the  congregation  of  Christ  Church  waited  on 
their  Rector,  to  inform  him  of  their  anxietv  and  deter- 
mination to  obtain,  if  possible,  Mr.  Feltus  lor  their  Mi- 
nister j  and  that,  for  tUs  purpose,  he  (their  Rector)  must 


4 


(     88     ) 

immediately  consent  to  admit  Mr.  Feltus  as  a  co-Rector. 
On  their  Rector's  stating  to  them,  that  Mr.  Feltus  was 
preparing  to  accept  the  call  from  Brooklyn,  they  replied^ 
that  Mr.  Feltus  would  not  accept  the  office  of  an  Assist- 
ant Minister,  hut  that  he  had  assured  them,  that,  on  con- 
dition of  his  hecoming  eo-Rector,  he  would  give  the  pre- 
ference to  Christ  Church.  These  gentlemen  assuredly 
would  not  have  made  these  declarations,  if  they  had  not 
indirectly,  at  least,  from  Mr.  Feltus,  or  from  some  .one 
of  his  confidential  friends,  ascertained  Ids  sentiments  and 

wmhcs 

«♦  On  the  above  facts  we  deem  it  our  duty  to  observe—* 
that  it  appears  to  us  little  consistent  with  tliat  Christian 
humility  which  should  ever  be  the  attendant  of  extraordi- 
nary piety  and  of  extraordinary  zeal  for  the  glory  of  God 
and  the  good  of  souls,  in  Mr.  Feltus  to  disdam  the  office 
of  Assistant  Minister,  which  has  subsisted  from  time  im- 
memorial in  Episcopal  Churches,  and  has,  at  difterent 
times,  and  in  difierent  places,  been  cheerfully  filled  by 
persons  of  at  least  equal  pretensions  with  Mr.  Feltus. 
The  conduct  of  this  gentleman  we  deem  further  excep- 
tionable, as  it  is  calculated  to  bring  odium  upon  the  office 
of  Assistant  Minister ;  to  excite  dissatisfaction  and  desire 
of  change  where. that  office  subsists;  and  to  introduce  into 
this  diocese  an  inncrcviXimi  in  the  constitution  of  parochial 
churches,  of  which  there  is  only  one  solitary  instance 
(introduced  under  some  very  peculiar  circumstances)  in 
the  United  States,  and  which  we  believe  is  unnecessary, 
injudicious,  and  tending  to  discord  and  disunion. 

«  We  think  also,  that  it  was  the  duty  of  Mr.  Feltus,  in 
his  /ranfe  conversations  with  you.  Right  Rev.  Sir,  and 
with  the  Rector  of  Christ  Church,  at  least  to  have  con- 
sulted i/oii  on  the  propriety  and  expediency  of  such  a 
novel  arrangement,  and  the  Rector  of  Christ  Church, 
whether  it  would  accord  with  his  ideas  and  feelings.  But 
the  total  silence  of  Mr.  Feltus  with  you.  Sir,  and  with 
the  Rector  of  Christ  Chui-ch  on  this  poipt;  his  holdinjg 
out  the  idea  of  accepting  the  call  from  Brooklyn ;  and  his 
repeatedly  and  solemnly  disclaiming  all  wish  or  design  to 
interfere  with  the  Rector  of  Christ  Church,  while  a  plan 
was  maturing,  if  not  by  his  direct  influence,  at  least  with 
his  connivance,  to  introduce  him  as  a  co-Rector  in  that 
Church,  display,  we  deeply  regret  to  say,  a  meanness  and 
duplicity,  connected  with  a  cunning,  and  aninordinate  love 
of  power  and  popularity,  which  render  it  impossible  for  us 
Ho  extend  in  future  our  confidence  to  this  gentleman.    We 


vt 


m 


(     8»     ) 

hesitate  not  to  declare,  that  we  shall  greatly  deplore  any 
event  which  should  connect  him  with  us  as  a  Presbyter 
of  this  diocese.     We  make  this  declaration  with  the  less 
hesitation,  as  we  understand  Mr.  Feltus  is  at  present  use- 
fully and  eligibly  situated  in  the  State  of  Jersey.    And 
we,  therefore,  cannot  think  any  change  desirable  on  his 
part,  which  will  place  him  in  a  situation  where  he  will 
not  enjoy  that  confidence  and  esteem  of  his  brethren  which 
fliay  be  of  importance  to  his  happiness,  if  not  to  his  re- 
spectability and  usefulness.  .1.      1. 
«  We  make  no  apology  to  you,  Right  Rev.  Sir,  for  this 
address.    We  know  you  deem  it  the  duty  of  your  Prea- 
bvters,  on  all  occasions  of  importance,  fi-ankly  to  furnish 
you  with  their  sentiments.     And  the  conduct  which  we 
have  stated  is  of  too  great  importance  to  the  interests,  the 
peace,  and  harmony  of  this  diooese,  and  too  important, 
therefore,  in  its  personal  consequences  to  us,  for  us  to 

have  remained  silent.  ,       •  u  *u  <. 

*<  We  make  this  communication  to  you,  in  the  wish  tbat 

a  copy  of  it  may  be  forwarded  to  Mr.  Feltus,  and  to  any 

oiher  persons  to  whom  you  may  judge  it  expedient  so  to 

do.       {v^  r 

«  We  are.  Right  Rev.  Sir, 

«  Very  respectfully  and  affectionately  yours, 

"ABRAHAM  BEACH. 
"JOHN  BOWDEN. 
"JOHN  HENRY  HOBAJRT. 

"WILLIAM  HARRIS. 
"GEORGE  STREBECK. 
"  EDMUND  D.  BARRY.*' 

'    in  the  conclusion  of  the  above  statement  the  Bishop  was 

Tequested  to  transmit  a  copy  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Feltus.    As^the 

Bishop  concluded  not  to  send  a  copy  to  the  Vestry  at  Brooklyn, 

ind  not  to  take  any  steps  in  the  business,  I  suppose  he  con- 

eluded  it  unnecessary  to  send  a  copy  to  Mr.  Feltus.     I  soon 

fefter  went  a  journey,  wliieh  the  state  of  my  health  rendered 

tiecessary ;  and  finding,  on  my  return,  that  Mv.  Feltus  had 

accepted  the  call  at  Brooklyn,  I  gave  myself  no  tarther 

trouble  in  the  business.     The  turn  which  he  gives  to  it,  that 

"  I  suddenly  desisted  from  my  intended  impeachment,  withr 

out  being  able  to  give  any  reason  to  the  Bishop,  or  to  those 

.gentlemen  whom  I  imposed  on  so  far  as  to  obtain  their  sig- 

jaatures  to  those  charges,"  is  as  false  as  it  is  injurious. 

It  was  certainly  the  dnty  of  the  Clergy  to  bear  their  testi- 
jfiouj  against  such  traits  of  character  as  Mr.  Feltus  esto* 


(     90     ) 

iitteii.  llie  mode  was  corpect.  And  I  now  proceed  to  show 
fliat  the  declaration*  in  this  paper,  in  regard  to  which  so 
^eat  an  outciy  has  been  raised  by  Mr.  Jones  and  Mr.  Fel, 
tiis,  though  I  am  satisfied  they  never  saw  it,  or  a  copy  of  it, 
were  all  authorized  by  facts. 

:  rOn  one  of  his  visits  to  New- York  Mr.  Feltus,  did  violate 
the  canons  of  the  Church,  by  preaching  **  in  other  places 
than  in  one  of  the  Churches  thereof,  without  the  consent  of 
the  major  number  of  the  Parochial  Clergy  of  the  said 
Churches  ;"*  and  by  not  using  the  liturgy  before  his  ser- 
mons and  lectures.!    His  conduct  also  was  calculated  to  ex- 
cite invidious  comparisons  between  himself  and  the  Rectoi' 
of  Christ  Church,  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  latter,  by  the 
ready  encouragement  which  he  gave  to  the  society  meetings, 
irhich  Mr.  Lyell,  as  far  as  was  prudent,  discountenanced. 
That  he  was  invited  by  Mr.  Lyell  to  attend  them,  is  no  justi- 
ficsttion  of  his  conduct.  ^He  knew  he  had  a  large  party  in  that 
Church  clamorous  for  liis  settlement  with  them.     He  knew 
that  this  party  were  all  attached  to  these  meetings.    And  h^ 
knew  that  at  this  time,  headed  by  Mr.  Warner,  this  party  were 
So  powerful  that  it  would  not  be  prudent  in  Mr.  Lyell  openly 
to  oppose  them  in  a  measure  which  savoured  so  much  of 
extraordinary  zeal  and  piety.     Hence  he  ought  not  to  have 
connected  hknself  with  that  party,  nor  availed  himself  of 
Mr.  LyelPs  permission  to  perform  an  irregular  act,  and  to 
violate  the  Canons  of  the  Church.     It  is  not  my  design 
ei^irdy  to  justify  Mr.  Lyell  in  giving  this  permission.    It 
was  his  anxious  wish  to  reform  the  irregularities  which  pre- 
vailed in  his  congregation.    To  this  end,  prudence  and  mo- 
deration were  neeessai^ir    And  violent  a  man  as  I  am  re- 
garded to  be,  it  is  well  known  among  many  of  my  brethren, 
i&iat  I  have  always  in  such  cases  been  the  advocate  of  cautious 
^and  moderate  measures.    The  congregation  of  Mr.  Lyell 
tiaw  exHbit^  a  seriousness,  combined  with  an  attachment  to 
"order  and  to  the  worship  of  the  Church,  exceeded  by  no 
Congregation  in  the  city.    This  has  been  efieeted  in  a  great 
^egree  by  his  prudence,  zeal,  and  pei*severance  in  combat- 
^g  difficulties.    These  were  much  inci^ased  by  the  party  in 
Tavowr  of  Mrl  Feltus ;  whose  attachment  was  kept  alive  l^ 
^<his  gentleman's  visits  to  the  city>  with  the  secret  if  not  os- 
"tensible  purpose  of  effecting  a  settlement  there.    He  acr 
Iqiowledges  that  even  in  his  last  visit  he  had  no  view  erf 
ieHling  at  Breoklyn.\    But  he  always  declared  his  wish  ta 


"Canon  53  of  Geiitral  Coavcation.     f  C»fwn  34- of  do-     t  App«a!,  ».  9i. 


fA 


« 


( ■  M    ). 

yemore  frmn  Swcdesborough.  Where '  then  did  he  so^  pio- 
hMj  direct  his  view  to  a  settlement,  as  to  Christ  Chun^, 
ivhere  he  knew  there  was  a  powerful  party,  headed  by.  a 
sentleman,  his  patron  and  friend,  whose  influence  in  the 
congregation,  it  was  supposed,  was  not  to  be  resisted  ? 

It  is  also  true,  as  the  Clergy  asserted  in  thoir  letter  to  the 
Bishop,  that  Mr.  Fekus  had  *'  disdained"  the  office  of  Assist- 
ant Minister ;  and  that  he  sought  to  introduce,  without  t|ie 
apptvbation  of  the  Bishop,  the  Clergy,  or  the  Convention, 
the  office  of  joint  Rector,  which  was  unknown  in  the  Dio- 
cese, and  only  tolerated  in  sotne  places  from  peculiar  cir- 
eumstances.     It  was  well  known  that  Mr.  Feltus  refused 
to  accept  the  o&ee  of  xissistant  Minister  in  Christ  Churchy 
on  the  express  gt'ound  that  tlie  office  of  joint  Rector  only 
was  worthy  of  his  acceptance.     The  gentlemen  who  waited 
on  Mr.  Lyell  made  declarations  to  this  effect  concerni^  Mr* 
Feltus's  sentiments.    But  the  matter  is  fully  established  by 
the  following  letter  of  Mr.  Feltus.     It  is  in  answer  to  au 
official  letter  of  Mr.  Lyell,  informing  him  of  his  election  to 
the  office  of  Assistant  Minister  of  Christ  Church.* 

«  Swedeshorough,  Tuesday  Mornings  June  18, 1806, 
«  Rev.  and  d^ar  Ser, 

^  «  Your  favour  of  the  4th  came  to  hand  in  due  time.  I 
Beed  not  inform  you  that  my  present  station  is  the  largest 
and  most  respectable  congregation,  and  by  far  the  best 
living  in  the  State.  Were  it  as  healthy  as  it  is  in  afl  other 
respects  agreeable  and  excellent,  nothing  could  influence 
me  for  a  moment  to  desire  a  change. 

<«  The  Vestry  of  Christ  Church  have  done  me  oui^V 
honour  in  their  affectionate  attention  and  obliging  invita^ 
tion.    I  pray  you  present  that  respectable  board  with  the 

'  suranee  of  my  sincere  thanks  for  any  good  opinion  they 
have  been  disposed  to  indulge  of  me.    The  esteem   «f 

^  the  Lord's  people  is  to  me  next  to  the  approbation  rf 
God.    And  I  trust  I  shall  always  endeavoui*  to  deserve 

'    that  respect  they  have  so  liberally  shown.  .     / 

«<  I  humbly  hope  that  my  good  friends  will  not  tiiin]^ 

.    strange  if  I  should  seem  somewhat  to  recede  from  thefe* 

'  affectionate  regaini  in  the  matter  of  an  Assistant.  As  % 
have  written  a  long  letter  to  Mr.  Warner  on  this  subject, 

^   it  will  be  the  less  neeessar}-  to  say  much  here,  and  i 


•  The  original  is  in  the  possession  of  Mcasr.'j.  Swor'!9,  :^"nd  minr  hf  seen  hy  an' 
iicreoAs  who  h«>»*  cnriosUy  tap«rrtsc  U.      '  %^  *—  ''■•  •■■    " 


i   9t  y 

kiiow  that  a  man  of  your  independence  of  mind  will  ra- 
ther approve  of  the  sentiment  than  otherwise,  when  I 
say,  that  I  should  not  feel  myself  at  liberty  to  accept  of 

•  any  thing  inferior  to  the  station  of  vl  joint  EectoVf  even  if 
decidedly  offered. 

«  With  compliments  to  Mrs.  Lyell,   in   which  Mrs, 
Feltus  heartily  joins,  I  am,  dear  Sir,  your  affectionateir 
brother  and  fellow-labourer  in  Christ, 

^  «  H.  J.  FELTUS/'    - 

Thus  then  it  appears  that  the  office  of  Assistant  Minister 
was  not  equal  to  Mr.  Feltus's  pretensions.  The  acceptance 
of  it  was  not  to  be  expected  from  "  a  man  of  his  inde-- 
peiidence  of  mind."  He  could  not  "  feel  himself  at  liberty 
to  accept  any  thing  inferior  to  the  station  of  joint  Rector  ;'*^ 
and  even  •*  this  must  be  decidedly  offered."  The  office  of 
Assistant  Minister  was  to  be  degraded ;  and  an  innovation  in 
the  Dioc^ese  to  be  introduced,  without  consulting  the  au- 
thority of  the  Church,  because  Mr.  Feltus  did  not  deem  it 
compatible  with  '*  his  independence  of  mind" — *^  to  accept 
any  thing  inferior  to  the  station  of  joint  Rector,  even  if  de- 
cidedly offered." 

Mr.  Feltus  in  his  statement  declares,  that  in  "the  close  of 
his  letter  to  Mr.  Lyell,"  in  which  he  "  returned  a  negative'* 
to  the  offer  of  becoming  Assistant,  he  observed,  "  in  these 
words** — "  Were  it  the  intention  of  your  vestry  to  call  a 
joint  Rector,  it  would  be  another  matter ;  but  I  could  not 
feel  myself  at  liberty  to  accept  the  station  of  an  Assistant." 
No  such  wai*d8  are  in  the  "  close**  of  this  letter  to  Mr.  Lvell, 
or  in  any  other  part  of  it.  The  language  there  employed 
by  Mr.  Feltus  is  much  stronger  and  much  more  reprehen- 
sible. .  • 

It  may  be  proper  to  obsen  e  that  the  office  of  associated  or 
loint  Reetor  subsisted  only  at  Baltimore,  in  the  State  of  Mary- 
land, where  it  was  recognized  by  a  law  of  the  State ;  and  the 
Creneral  Convention  were  thus  compelled  very  reluctantly  to 
notice  it  in  the  Canons.  The  sentiment  and  usage  of  the 
Church  were  against  it;  and  the  General  Convention  at  Balr 
timore,  some  years  ago,  unanimously  passed  a  resolution 
strongly  disapproving  of  the  office,  and  recommending  its 
being  abrogated  where  it  prevailed.  In  the  Diocese  of  Kcw- 
"Sork,  this  office  was  unknown  to  the  charters  of  any  of  the 
Cburches,  and  to  the  law  of  the  State  incorporating  Epis- 
copal congregations.  An  attempt  to  introduce  it  without 
consulting  the  proper  authority,  was  a  disorderly  act ;  and 
to  allege  as  a  reason^  that  an   "  inferior"  office  was  not 


(    9^:   ) 

worthy  the  acceptance  of  a  man  of"  independence  of  mind," 
was,  to  say  the  least,  a  very  indecorous  one. 

When  these  circumstances  are  considered ;  when  it  is  con- 
sidered that  these  sentiments  of  Mr.  Feltus,  conveyed  not 
in  a  private,  but  in  an  official  correspondence,  were  unequi- 
vocally known  and  never  publicly  contradicted  by  him ;  when 
it  is  considered  that  be  annually  made  visits  to. New-York, 
which  never  failed  to  call  up  the  subject  in  Mr.  Lyell's  con- 
gregation ;  when  further  it  is  considered  that  his  friends 
who  waited  on  Mr.  Lyell,  informed  this  gentleman  that  they 
were  satisfied  Mr.  Feltus  would  accept  the  orHce  of  joint 
Rector  if  offi^red  to  him ; — surely  the  inference  would  have 
been  natural,  that  these  gentlemen,  in  their  demand  upon 
Mr.  Lyell,  wei*e  authorized  by  Mr.  Feltus  himself.  But  the 
Clergy  in  their  paper  made  no  such  direct  charge.  They 
only  remarked — "  These  gentlemen  assuredly  would  not 
have  made  these  declarations  if  they  had  not  indirectly  2i 
least  from  Mr.  Feltus  or  from  some  one  of  his  contidenti^ 
friends,  ascertained  his  sentiments  and  wishes."  These 
gentlemen  indeed  afterwards  disclaimed  any  authority  from 
him.  But  on  what  authority  then  did  they  act  ?  Doubtless 
on  the  uncontradicted  declarations  of  Mr.  Feltus  in  his  offi- 
cial letter  to  Mr.  Lyell.  And,  under  all  these  circumstances, 
the  conclusion  was  a  just  and  natural  one,  that  the  demand 
to  admit  Mr.  Feltus  as  a  joint  Rector  was  with,  at  least,  the 
"  connivance"  of  this  gentleman.  His  contemptuous  rejection 
of  the  office  of  Assistant  Minister;  and  his  attempt  to  in- 
troduce another  office  unknown  in  the  Diocese,  were  passed 
unnoticed  by  the  Clergy,  until  they  found  that  his  frequent 
visits  to  New- York  renewed  the  subject ;  and  that  at  length 
several  influential  gentlemen  of  Christ  Church,  and  after- 
wards a  committee  of  the  Vestry,  waited  on  Mr.  Lyell  with 
a  demand  that  he  should  admit  Mr.  Feltus  as  joint  Rector. 
Then  they  drew  up  a  statement  of  facts,  with  their  opinion 
thereupon,  and  presented  it  to  the  Bishop,  with  a  request 
that  he  would  transmit  a  copy  to  this  gentleman.  The  mea- 
sure was  necessary,  honourable,  prudent,  and  candid.  Duty 
to  the  Church  required  pointed  reprehension  of  such  con- 
duct, and  vigorous  opposition  at  the  outset  to  an  attempt 
which  might  totally  change  the  constitution  of  £pisco[rail 
congregations. 

This  gentleman  has  connected  some  particulars  with  this 
business  of  which  I  have  no  knowledge.  I  knew  nothing 
of  the  report  which  occa^oned  a  "  note  from  one  of  the 
members  of  Trinity  Church,"  nor  of  the  letter  which  Mr. 
Lyell  wrote  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  W^ilmer,  "  in  order  to  supecsede 


(my 

the  Rev.  Mr.Telins  at  Brookljnf'  and  wMeh  Mr.  ¥%hus 
says  he  discovered  by  "  the  interposition  of  thut  divine  Pp%, 
vidence  who  is  the  protector  of  innocence  and  the  avenser 
of  wron^."  Bttt  I  do  know,  that  Mr,  Wilmer  told  me  at 
the  late  General  Convention  in  New-Haven,  that  one  prin- 
cipal  object  of  his  journey  was  to  clear  Mr.  Lyell's  charac- 
ter from  the  imputations  ai  Mr.  Feltas. 
*  This  ^ntleman,  in  his  third  charge  declares,  that  « I  had 
<fie  hardihood  to  assert  that  he  had  forged  his  testimonials  ; 
and  that  I  sent  this  cruel  accusation  into  his  congregation^ 
to  the  no  smaH  disturbance  of  many  pious  minds.*' 

So  far  from  the  latter  part  of  this  charge  being  correct,  I 
solemnly  declare,  that  until  a  few  weeks  before  the  appear- 
ance of  the  «  Appeal,"  the  idea  never  entered  into  my  mind, 
that  any  person  imputed  to  me  a  chai^  so  utterly  unfounded. 
Then  indeed,  for  the  first  time,  I  heard  that  Mr.  Feltus 
threatened  publicly  to  bring  this  charge  against  me.  The 
intimation  was  then  conveyed  to  me  in  a  letter  from  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Hart,  of  Hempstead,  in  the  following  terms. 
The  letter  is  dated  April  7,  1811. 

**  In  coming  out  of  Brooklyn,   I  found  Mr.  Feltu* 
'   standing  at  his  pte  with  Mr.  Ir-eland.     As  I  Came  up, 
they  both  came  into  the  road,  and  after  <  how  d'ye  do,* 
&c.  entered  abruptly  u^on  the  subject  of  the  approach- 
ing election-— and  after  «  supposing  1  had  been  made  ac- 
quainted with  the  state  of  the  business'-.^sked  if  I  had 
seen  Mr.  How— il  inquired  why  Mr.  How  was  mentioned 
particularly.    They  said  they  understood  he  had  been  up 
to  see  me — ^which  I  dented,   and  observed,   that  they 
would  probably  hear  many  things  equally  false.      Mr. 
Feltus  then  folded  his  arms,  and  with  an  air  of  imp<»*t- 
ance  and  complacent  conjidenee^  said,  <  Aye,  well,  I  sup* 
pose  there  can  be  but  one  mind,  or  at  least  an  almost 
unanimous  opinion  in  favour  of  the  proper  candidate.' 
1  agreed  with  him.      «  O  yes,'  said  he,  <  iiw-doiiM-erf-If 
Dr.  Beach  will  engage  the  almost  unanimous  suffrage  of 
I  the  Church  at  large,  and  of  the  convention.'    I  coolly 
observed,   that  I  had  not  before  heard  any  person  ex- 
press that  opinion.    He  immediately  dismissed  his  affected 
complacency,  and  supplying  its  place  with  an  air  of  vht^ 
dictwe  asperity,  said,  *  If  Hobart  does  not  immediately 
withdraw  all  pretensions,  and  put  himself  in  the  hack 
ground,  be  assured,  he  will  be  orDCrwhelniied  with  sueh  a 
"black  fist  of  criminal' charges,   well  supported,  as  wffl 
rfftn  him.    If  he  knew  all  that  is  naw-m  the  press  cmd 


»     #■■. 


C  »  ) 

to  he  published,  he  wonld^/trtnfe  from  the  edniefsL%  fAlA 
that  does  not  contain  one  half  that  will  be  brouglit  against 
him.  I  myself  have  charges  to  bring  against  hkn,  enou^ 
to  crush  him  into  disgrace  and  contempt  for  ever,  as 
surely  as  his  name  is  Hobart'  He  then  stated  among 
other  things,  that  you  went  about  Brooklyn  and  New^ 
York,  at  the  time  of  his  coming  into  this  state,  and 
proclaimed  that  the  credentials  he  brought  forward  were 
forgeries ;  and  upon  your  being  cautioned  to  be  careful 
what  you  should  say,  you  said  repeatedly  in  so  many 
words,  *  /  charge  him  with  foi'geryJ  That  he  had  al- 
ready gotten  twOf  and  could  liavejfbur  affidavits  to  esi> 
tablisfa  the  fact;  with  many  other  things  or  particulars 
in  your  conduct  and  conversation  equally  unchrnstian,^' 
.    ke*  &c.  &e. 

According  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  the  above  letter 
first  excited  in  my  mind  the  idea  of  my  being  charged  with 
accusing  Mr.  Feltus  cf  having  forged  his  testimonials. 

On  my  waiting  on  Bishop  Moore  one  morning,  1  found 
him  reading  certain  papers  which  he  said  were  the  testimo- 
nials of  Mr.  Feltus,  and  which  he  handed  to  me.  Among 
these  was  a  testimonial  from  the  Vestry  of  the  Church  at 
Swedesborough.  We  jointly  concluded,  from  the  phrnseo- 
logy  of  this  testimonial,  and  from  the  hand- writing,  which 
resembled  that  of  Mr.  Feltus,  that  it  was  his  composition. 
I  have  Bishop  Moore's  authority  for  saying,  that  he  fully 
concurred  with  me  in  this  opinion.  The  names  of  the  Ves- 
try in  their  different  hand-writing,  were  annexed  to  this  in- 
strument ;  and  the  idea  that  Mr.  Feltus  had  written  them 
also,  which  only  could  make  his  writing  the  testimonial 
s*  forgery,  never  entered  into  my  mind.  My  conjecture 
that  Mr.  Feltus  had  written  the  testimonial,  to  which  .^he 
procured  the  signatures  of  the  Vestry,  was  afterwards  men*- 
tioned  by  me  as  an  abatement  in  some  degree  of  the  force  of 
the  most  extraordinary  terms  of  commendation  which  were 
applied  to  him. 

1  will  now  present  to  you.  Gentlemen,  a  vindication  of 
myself  from  this  charge,  nearly  as  1  drew  it  up  immediately 
on  reading  the  statement  of '  Mr.  Feltus,  and  which  has 
been  shown  to  some  persons. 

<*  On  the  accusation  of  charging  Mr.  Feltus  with  <  forging 
his  testimonials,'  I  am,  and  ever  shall  be  most  completelv 
at  issue  with  Mr.  Warner  and  Mr*  Ii-eland^  and  with  all 
ether  persons,  if  any  such  there  ere,  who  jnak©  similar  de- 


(  ^  ) 

elaratious.  I  most  solemnly  ami  explicitly  deuy  that  I  e?ef 
charged  Mr.  Feltus  witli  forging  his  testimonials ;  01:,  that 
even  the  sentiment  ever  entered  into  my  mind.  The  only 
surmise  that  I  ever  entertained  or  expressed  was,  that. Mr. 
Feltus  had  dietated,  or  drafted,  the  testimonial  himself^ 
and  procured  the  signatures  of  the  Vestry.  . 
.  «  This  solemn  and  explicit  denial,  may  be  fortified  by  the 
strongest  presumptive  proofs ;  the  case  admitting  of  proofs 
of  tMs  nature  only.  '        . 

<<  I  think  I  may  aver  its  improbability,  from  the  high  cH- 
mnalrty  vfhx(ih  it  imputes  to  me.  To  have  urged  against 
•any  person,  and  particularly  a  .Clergyman,  a.  charge  of  for- 
^ry  vhieh  I  had  not  the  means  of  establishing ;— to  have 
urged  It,  not  ffom- '  haste  of  tenaper,'  or  inadvertence, 
but  deliberately,  to  different  persons,  at  ^ifi^^i'^i^t  times, 
Kirould  argue  a  baseness,  an  atrociousness  of  heart,  of  which 
*I  did  not  suppose  any  individual  thought  me  capable, 
i  ,M  But  admitting  me  capable  of  the  high  criminality  in- 
volved in  the  charge,  could  I  have  been  guilty  of  the  folly 
:whieli  it  displays?  What  must  be  the  jmliscfKtion  of  the 
-man  who  w  ould  deliberately  commit  a  charge  which  he  had 
not  the  means  of  substantiating,  to  two  persons,  who,  he 
had  every  reason  to  believe,  were  the  most  disposed  of  all 
men  living,  to  employ  it  to  his  disadvantage? 
•  ."  I  argue  its  improbability  farther  from  the  statement  of 
Mr.  Feltus  himself.  Had  it  i)een  understood  that  my  charge, 
-with  respect  to  the  testimonials,  was  that  of  forgery,  is  it 
«ot  surprising  that  the  communications  from  the  Vestry  and 
-others  at  Swedesborough,  on  the  subject  of  the  charge, 
express  no  astonishment  that  their  *  faithful,  zealous,  and 
.evangelical  Pastor,'  had  been  accused  of  so  heinous  a 
crime  ?  The  letter  of  Mr.  Warner  to  them  on  the  subject, 
rwbich  would  ascertain  in  what  light  he  then  regarded  the 
charge,  does  not  appear.  The  letter  from  Mr.  Tittermary 
states,  that  *  Dr.  James  Stratton  dictated  the  testimonial 
^f  respect,*  '  which  was  cordially  approved  and  signed, 
and  copied  by  his  friend  ray  son.'  This  style  of  i^emark  is 
perfectly  natural,  on  the  supposition  of  its  having  been  said 
that  Mr.  Feltus  had  drafted  the  testimonial.  But  a  very 
different  style  would  have  been  used,  had  it  been  understood 
that  he  was  accused  of  the  odious  crime  of  forgery. 

"  But  admitting  that  the  precise  nature  of  the  charge  was 
mJt  communicated  to  Mr.  Feltus's  friends  at  Swedesborough, 
is  it  not  surprising  that  an  accusation,  so  seriously  affecting 
his.character,  said  to  have  been  made  by  me  in  1807,  should 
not  be  noticed  by  him  w  his  friends  here  until  1811  ?    Is  it 


*i 


'i 


(  97  ) 

not  surprising  that,  according  to  his  own  account  of  an  in- 
terview which  he  had  with  me  on  the  subject  of  my  treat- 
ment of  him,  he  made  no  mention,  required  no  expiation 
of  this  very  serious  charge?  Or,  that  if  his  silence  was 
owing  to  his  forbearance,  even  the  "  warmth,"  the  <*  super- 
cilious manner,"=*^  which  he  imputes  to  me,  could  not  pro- 
voke him  to  demand  from  me  whether  I  had  not  charged 
him  with  forging  his  testimonials  ?  Is  it  not  surprising  that 
an  interview  in  which  my  behaviour  is  represented  to  have 
been  **  intolerant  and  persecuting,"  could  not  excite  him  to 
carry  into  effect  the  purpose  which  he  previously  entertained 
of  ^<  submitting  my  whole  conduct  to  the  Bishop  and  his 
brethren  ?"f  And  is  it  not  more  surprising  that  at  the  close 
of  this  interview,  as  I  solemnly  declare,  he  expressed  a  sin- 
cere and  brotherly  affection  for  me — (a  sincere  and  bro- 
therly affection  for  a  man  who  had  charged  him  with  for- 
gery !)  and  that  at  various  times  since,  he  should  have  used 
to  me  and  to  others  the  most  courteous  terms  concerning 
me,  and  earnestly  pressed  me  to  exchange  with  him  ? 

"I  refrain  from  impeaching,  in  any  degree,  the  credibility 
of  the  gentlemen  whose  testimonies  are  adduced.  With 
Mr.  Ireland  I  never  was  in  habits  of  intercourse,  and  havt^ 
no  distinct  recollection  of  any  conversation  with  him  on  the 
subject.  To  Mr.  Warner  I  did  state  that  I  had  entertained 
and  expressed  the  surmise,  that,  judging  from  the  style  of 
the  testimonial  of  the  Vestry  of  the  Church  at  Swedesbo- 
rough, Mr.  Feltus  had  written  or  dictated  it,  and  thatthn 
Vestry  whose  names  in  their  various  hand  writings  were 
annexed,  had  signed  it.  The  surmise  was  first  expressed 
by  me  to  the  Bishop,  when  we  were  perusing  the  testimonial 
in  his  study.  And  I  am  satisfied  it  is  a  surmise  which  will 
naturally  arise  in  the  mind  of  any  one  who  will  compai'e 
the  language  of  that  testimonial  with  Mr.  Feltus's  style  of 
speaking  and  writing.  I  wish  not  to  ^impeach  the  credibi- 
lity of  the  gentlemen  who  testify  on  this  subject,  and  there- 
fore impute  their  mistake  to  misconception,  or  to  miscon- 
struction of  the  language,  which  only,  I  most  solemnly  de- 
clare, I  ever  used." 

■■■IP  *    •  ■ 

Since  drafting  the  above,  I  have  been  furnished  with 
documentis  which  enable  me  still  more  fully  to  disprove  the 
charge. 

1.  Mr.  Feltus  himself  did  not  believe  the  charge. 

He  perfectly  understood  that  I  never  asserted  any  thing 


*  Appeal,  II.  103. 


13 


t  IW^.  p- 102, 


r  * 

I 


I   k 


(     9*     ) 

sior^  thftB  that  be  liad  drafted  the  testimonial  himaelfy  and 
procured  the  signatures  of  the  Vestry.  Tliis  will  appear 
from  the  following  letter,  addressed  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barry, 
to  whom  the  communication  was  first  made,  by  Dr.  Osbom, 
for  many  y^ars  a  respectable  Physician  at  Brooklyn,  but 
who  has  recently  removed  to  this  city. 

"  My  Dear  Sir, 

**  Common  justice  appears  to  demand,  that  the  state- 
ment which  I  am  about  to  make,  should  be  in  the  hands 
of  some  person  who  will,  as  occasion  may  require,  moke 
use  of  it  in  the  cause  of  truth.  As  we  have  already  had 
some  conversation  on  the  subject,  I  have  taken  the  liberty 
cf  addressing  it  to  you,  Sir ;  in  the  confidence  of  your 
giving  it  that  weight  which  it  has  to  us  mutually  ap- 
peared to  merit. 

*'  In  common  with  many  others,  previous  to  the  trial 
of  Mr.  Ireland,  I  was  disposed  to  defend  him,  or  to  pal- 
liate the  offences  with  which  he  was  charged ;  and  parti- 
eularly  to  oppose  the  abuse  with  which  he  was  loaded, 
before  he  had  been  heard  in  his  defence.    To  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Brooklyn,  it  is  weU  known,  that  I  hate  fre- 
quently endeavoured  to  obviate  the  asperity  in  which  Mr. 
Feltus  has  indulged.    To  Mr.  Ireland,  it  is  well  known, 
that  in  reference  to  his  situation  with  the  Church,  I  have 
frequently  urged  him  to  be  on  his  guard  with  respect  to 
Mr.  Feltus ;  and  this  caution  I  was  led  to  give  to  Mi^. 
Ireland  (and  I  think  I  expressed  the  same  opinion  to 
Dr.  Richard  C.  Moore)  from  my  knowledge  of  the  lan- 
guage held  by  Mr.  Feltus  previous  to  Mr.  Ireland's  trial, 
which  was  in  the  highest  terms  of  reprobation  of  Mr. 
Ireland.    Indeed,  I  can  assure  you.  Sir,  and  the  world, 
that  no  one  could  have  been  more  virulent  against  Mr. 
Ireland  than  was  Mr.  Feltus.    And,  although  I  do  not 
recollect  ever  to  have  given  to  Mr.  Ireland  (as  delicacy 
towards  himself  prohibited)  my  particular  reasons  for 
-^u^peeting  the  sincerity  of  Mr.  Feltus ;  yet,  Mr.  Ireland 
will  recollect  that  I  have,  more  than  once,  cautioned  him  ; 
and  I  did  so  from  a  full  conviction  that  no  man  could 
honestly,  at  so  short  an  interval,  act  so  directly  opposite 
*ko  Ills  late  declarations,  and  become  the  warm  advocate 
of  the  man  whom  he  so  vei'y  recently,  and  so  lavishly 
abused. 

^<  Among  other  matters  of  minor  importance,  ^s  they 
do  not  concern  the  statement  of  Mr.  Feltus,  contained  in 
Mr.  Jones's  paiu^hlet,  I  recollect  nell  Mr.  Feltus  having 


v.* 


{  ^  ) 

-charged  Mr.  Ireland  with  being  <  the  authior  (f  a  most 
mllainoMS  report 9*  in  regard  to  himself,  and  having  en- 
deavoured to  fix  on  him  the  stigma  of  forgery,  and  to  have 
circulated  the  report  under  the  pretended  authority  of 
Dr.  Hobart ;  than  which,  said  Mr.  Feltus, « nothing  can  he 
more  base^  equally  wicked  as  U  regards  Dr,  Hohatt  and 
myself;  as 'he  knofws  it  to  be  an  absolute  perversion  of 
what  took  place :  Dr.  Hobart  said  the  warm  recommenda- 
tions which  I  produced^  were  written  by  myself  ^  but  he  ne- 
ver insimmted  they  were  Tvot  siinetioned  by  the  signers  ;  and 
this  Mr.  Ireland  has  conjured  into  a  dsclatation,  on  the 
part  if  Dr.  Hobart  9  that  I  forged  themJ 

f<  I  ought  not  to  omit  noticing  to  you  the  griei^t  simi- 
larity of  expression,  and  precisely  the  same  import  of 
language  which  Mr.  Jones  has  attributed  to  Mr.  How, 
relative  to  Mr.  Ireland  since  his  trial,  and  that  absolutely 
made  use  of  by  Mr.  Feltus  previous  to  the  tri^;  Mr. 
Feltus  said,  <  he  ought  to  be  considered  an  outcast  wretch^ 
and  treated  as  such;  and  although  it  would  be  a  dreadful 
thing  to  Mr.  Ireland^ s  family 9  for  whom  he  expressed 
feelings  of  great  compassion9  yet  every  gentleman  would 
he  compdled  to  shun  his  company9  and  indeed  they  ought 
not  to  speak  to  him.^  Thus  much.  Sir,  as  it  has  fallen  to 
my  lot  to  know,  I  think  it  my  duty  to  communicate,  that 
as  much  as  in  my  power  lies,  I  may  subserve  the  6ause 
of  trudmnd  justice. 

«  I  am.  Sir,  respectfully, 
*^  and  with  much  esteem, 
ti  your  obedient  servant, 
«  SAMUEL  O&BORN. 
<<  Re?.  E.  D.  Barry, 

<^JV«r-rorfe,  Jtfai/18,  ISll.** 

58.  Mr.  Warner  never  meant  to  charge  »ie  with  accusing 
Mr.  Feltus  of  writing  the  names  to  the  testimonial.  Hence 
he  could  never  have  meant  to  charge  me  with  forgery  in  the 
common  acceptation  of  the  wonl.  It  is  no  forgery,  and  it 
is  no  Clime  to  write  an  instrument,  which  is  signed  by  other 
persons. 

I  accidentally  heard  of  a  conversation  whi<^h  passed  be- 
tween Mr.  Warner  and  Mr.  Ephraim  Clarice,  of  Philadel- 
phia, when  in  this  city,  on  his  return  from  New-Haven, 
where  he  attended  the  General  Convention  as  a  Lay  Deputy 
from  Pennsylvania.  This  gentleman  is  an  intimate  friend  of 
Mr.  Warner.  Bisfat;^  White,  Dr.  Glentworth  finother  Lay 
Deputy  from  Pe^insylvania,  Mr.  Clarke,  and  my«elf,  acci- 


/ 


(     100     ) 

aentaUv  me^^ogether.    In  presence  of  the  othe?  gentlemen. 

^':  ^   w  '"  '"'i'T''  ^'^  ''"  *"^"^^  ^^"^  i»«^  told  me, 
that  Mr.  TVarner  had  assured  him  that  he  never  meant  to 

charge  me  with  having  accused  Mr.  Feltus  of  signine  the 
^^^^^  t^,^*"^  testimonial ;  that  he  had  no  such  idea- 

The  lollowmg  extract  of  a  letter  from  Bishop  White  wiU 
Bhow  what  are  the  character  and  standing  of  Mr.  Clarke : 

* 

.||  k"  "^^"^  ^''i^*  character  of  Mr.  Clarke,  perhaps  it 
will  be  sufficient  for  me  to  sav,  and  to  authorize  you  to 

T'u  P'yj'^T'  ^^'^^  ^"""^  the  long  course  of  years  in 
which  he  has  been  known  to  me,  I  have  never  heard  of 
any  reproach  on  his  character  in  any  respect  On  the 
contrary,  he  stands  unexceptionably  well,  both  as  a  citi- 
zen,  and  as  a  member  of  the  Churches  of  which  I  am 
the  Rector;  and  of  which  he  has  been  a  vestryman  for 
many  years. 

''  WM.  WHITE.'* 

In  a  leitcr  to  me,  under  date  of  June  6,  1811,  in  answer 
to  one  which  I  had  addi^ssed  to  Wm,  requesting  him  to  pro- 
S  ^^^""^^  ^  affidavit  of  the  fact,  Bishop  wW 

«  Mr.  Clarke  is  unfortunately  out  of  town ;  but  will  be 
at  home  m  a  few  days ;  and  I  have  left  a  request  that  he 
will  give  me  as  early  a  caU  as  possible.  I  certainly  under- 
|rtood  him,  that  his  information  by  Mr.  Warner,  was  his  (Mr. 
IV.)  not  meaning  that  Dr.  Hobart  charged  Mr.  Feltus  with 
torgery.  Mr.  Clarke  can  hardly  have  any  objection  to  the 
mentiomng  of  it  in  a  letter.  Perhaps  it  may  be  best  to 
ask  this  only  of  him  the  first  instance ;  as  he  may  suppose 
an  affidavit  to  carry  an  implication  that  Mr.  Warner  will 
deny  his  words.  If  there  should  be  such  a  denial,  eer- 
tainly  the  affidavit  should  follow," 

A  letter  from  Bishop  White  dated  the  foUowing  day,  con- 
tarns  the  following :  o     jy 

« I  have  seen  Mr.  Clarke,  but  transiently,  and  when 
he  was  m  haste  to  leave  town  with  some  of  his  family,  fop 
his  country  seat.  He  confirmed  Dr.  Glentworth's  and  mv 
understanding  of  him." 

I  ought  to  observe,  that  Dr.  GlentworUi,  who  was  present 


(    101    ) 

at  this  conTersadon,  authorizes  me  to  say,  that  his  undeGr 
standing  of  Mr.  Clarke  was  the  same  with  Bishop  White's. 
The  following  letter  Mr.  Clarke  authorized  Bishop  White 
to  write  to  me : 

«  PhilaMphia,  June  13,  1811.  ' 
^*  Right  Rev.  and  dear  Sir, 

«  In  regard  to  the  conversation  at  which  I  was  acci- 
dentally present,  and  in  which  Mr.  Ephraim  Clarke,  of 
this  city,  stated  what  had  passed  between  him  and  Mr. 
George  Warner  concerning  a  charge  of  Dr.  Hobart 
against  Mr.  Feltus,  I  understood  Mr.  Clarite  to  state, 
that  Mr.  Warner  explained  himself  as  not  alleging,  that 
Dr.  Hobart  charged  Mr.  Feltus  with  signing  the  names 
to  the  testimonials.  • 

«  Agreeably  to  your  desire,  I  have  this  day  seen  Mr. 
Clarke  on  the  subject :  and  he  is  clear  in  the  recollec- 
tion, that  Mr.  Warner  distinguished  between  the  testimo- 
nial from  Swedesborough,  and  the  signatures  annexed 
to  it. 

«  In  case  of  necessity,  Mr.  Clarke  would  not  object  to 
his  name  being  made  use  of;  but  finding  difilculty  at  pre- 
sent,  declines  any  thing  further  than  the  above. 

*'  I  remain 

^  Your  affectionate  brother, 

"  WM.  WHITE.*' 

In  a  letter,  dated  June  12,  Bishop  White,  speaking  of  a 
conversation  with  Mr.  Clai*e,  observes—  . 

«  It  may  be  proper  to  mention  to  you,  that  he  (Mr. 
Clarke)  informed  me  of  a  letter  received  from  Mr.  War- 
ner,  in  which  he  makes  in  substance  the  same  distinction, 
which  Mr.  Clarke  understood  to  have  been  made  in  con- 
versation. A  similar  account  of  this  letter  I  had  pre- 
viously heard  from  a  brother  of  Mr.  Chirke.'* 

rui^^^^^  Warner  has  thus  admitted  to  Mr.  ClaAe  that  he 
r^^'  ^*^^)  correctly  understood  him  as  asserting  that "  he 
(Mr.  Warner)  did  not  mean  to  charge  me  with  accus- 
ing Mr.  Feltus  of  signing  the  names  to  the  testimonials,  Mr. 
Uarke  does  not  deem  it  necesisary  to  give  any  affidavit  on 
the  subject.  It  might  imply  that  Mr.  Warner  woirfd  deny 
what  he  expressly  admitted  to  Mr.  Clarke;  an  implication 
which,  from  his  very  particular  fnendship  for  Mr.  Warner, 
he  would  be  unwilling  shoidd  be  drawn  from  any  act  of  his.   , 


I 


<    lOS    ) 

'  It  wwild  appear  from  the  origi«al  stateuient  of  Mr.  Wur- 
ner  «n  this  subject  (page  100  of  the  ^<  Appeal"),  that  he  de- 
signed, at  die  time  of  drafting  it,  to  make  this  distinetioD 
between  the  testimonials  and  the  names  annexed ;  and  thus 
while  he  charged  me  with  accusing  Mr.  Feltus  of  writing 
ihe  one,  not  to  imfdy  that  I  accused  him  of  signing  the 
other.  He  prints  the  word  testimomals  in  Italics ;  as  if  to 
distinguish  between  them  and  the  signatures,  and  thus  to 
ihow  dwU  he  understood  my  declaration  of  "  forgery"  to  ex- 
fetid  only  to  the  former.  Ag^9  he  states  that  I  said, 
•*  Hicy  are  his  hand- writing.  I  have  comj^red  them  with 
liis  letters,  and  am  satisfied."  Now,  as  the  signatures  to 
tfae  testimomal  are  each  in  a  different  hand-writing,  and  all 
vf  them  diffci-ent  from  the  testimonial  itself,  it  follows  that 
as  I  had  asserted  the  testimonial  agreed  with  the  hand-writ- 
ing of  Mr.  Feltus,  I  could  not  possibly  mean  to  assert  that 
he  bad  written  these  signatures  also.  Tiiey  were  in  hand- 
nivtiBgs  totally  difierent* 

Tiie  fact,  however,  that  Mr.  Warner  did  not  mean  to 
charge  me  with  accusing  Mr.  Feltus  with  "  signing  the 
•ames  to  the  testimonials,"  is,  I  trust,  evident  from  the 
foregmng  documents.  I  humUy  conceive,  then,  that  there 
is  no  forgery  in  the  ease. 

Astonished  as  I  was  at  the  charge  against  me  which  I 
have  jast  aaswered,  I  was  almost  equally  surprised  at  the 
last  accusation  by  Mr.  Feltus,*  that  1  refused  to  be  recon- 
ciled ;  and  that  with  the  assistance  of  my  "  compeer,  Mr. 
How,  I  have  continued  ever  since  to  torture,  and  lessen^  and 
misrepresent  his  reputation." 

With  respect  to  Mr.  How,  he  took  no  steps  against  Mr. 
Feltus^  until  this  gentleman  aided  Mr.  Ireland  in  his  at- 
tempts to  subvert  the  discipline  of  the  Church.  Previously 
to  that  period  Mr.  Feltus  had  called  on  him ;  and  took  great 
eare,  by  his  conversation,  to  impress  Mr.  How  with  an  idea 
that  he  was  a  high  Churchman  ;  and  he  even  expressed  his 
strong  apprehensions  of  the  injurious  effects  of  those  very 
societies  which  he  had  originated,  or  at  least  countenanced 
•t  Swedesborough.  So  far  from  refusing  to  be  reconciled 
to  Mr.  Feltus,  I  never  had  disagreed  with  him.  I  treated 
him  on  all  occasions  when  I  met  him  with  civility,  and  ne- 
rer  spoke  in  unfavourable  terms  of  him  to  any  one  of  his 
congregation.  A  conversation  which  I  had,  within  a  short 
time,  with  two  gentlemen  on  the  subject  of  his  statement, 
fund  one  which  to<^  place  about  a  year  ago  with  one  of  hi« 

*  Appeal,  p.  90  fid  10(2 


^  I 


>«^, 


(    io?    ) 

Vestry,  who  inquired  of  me  the  causes  of  my  not  exehang- 
ing  with  Mr.  Feltus,  are  the  only  exceptions  to  this  remark. 
The  interview  with  him  in  which  he  declares  I  tre|ite4 
him  with  so  much  incivility,  took  place  after  two  or  thl^e 
days  previous  engagement ;  so  that  I  could  not  have  beea 
taken  by  surprise.     During  this  conversation,  I  declaim  it 
was  my  object,  to  touch  upon  the  delicate  point  of  my 
f  treating  him  with  reserve,  on  which  Mr.  Feltus  required 
explanation,  with  as  much  mildness  as  was  in  my  power. 
And  really,  I  must  thinks  that  it  is  not  impossible  for  me  to 
exhibit  this  virtue.    No  allusion  was  made,  I  perfectly  i^- 
collect,  to  the  "  sheet  of  false  accusations/'  or  the  "  clmrg^ 
of  forgery."    The  conversation  chiefly  turned  on  my  right 
to  decline  official  intercourse  with  any  Clergyman  without 
giving  oflfence ;  and  I  only  delicately  alluded  to  the  causes 
of  my  distrust  of  Mr.  Feltus,  when  he  pressed  me  Upon  th^ 
subject.    So  far  from  appearing  displeased,  he  several  times 
^ve  me  credit  for  my  fi*ankness ;  and  when  he  left  me, 
assured  me  that  he  "  entertained  a  sincere  and  brotherly 
affection  for  me."    He  has  often  before  and  since  this  in- 
terview, pi'essed  me  to  exchange  with  him ;  spoken  of  m© 
in  affectionate  terms  to  various  Clergymen ;  and  to  one  of 
them  in  particular  (the  Rev.  Mr.  Barry),  whom  on  his  way 
to  see  me  he  met  in  the  street,  he  expressed  his  wish  alsd 
to  see  his  "  good  brother  Hobart,"  and  accompanied  this 
gentleman  to  my  house.     If  during  tliis  period,  the  dispon 
sitions  which  his  statement  discovers  were  rankling  at  his 
heart,  he  went  much  further  than  Christian  meekness  de- 
manded, and,  let  me  add^  than  Christian  sincerity  and  can- 
dour would  sanction. 


My  address  has  ali*eady  swelled  to  so  much  greater  an 
extent  than  I  expected,  that  I  must  be  more  brief  in  my 
view  of  the  charges  against  me  in  the  «  Appeal"  which  I 
have  not  as  yet  examined. 

% 

•a  conversation  an  the  i5th  of  June,  1810, 

in  the  Vestry-room  of  Trinity  Church,  furnishes  Mr.  Jonc« 
witli  a  subjeet  of  complaint  against  me. 

This  conversation  was  occasioned  by  a  letter^  which,  a 
month  previously,  he  addressed  to  me ;  in  Which  he  undejN 
takes  to  counsel  me  on  the  necessity  and  duty  of  reconcilia- 
tion with  Dr.  Moore,  (with  whom  I  had  never  quarrelled) 


A 


i 


ft 


(     104     ) 

and  for  this  purpose  ottered  his  serviecs  as  mediator.     Con- 
ceivingy  as  I  did,  that  he  was  the  prime  mover  in  what  he 
styles  "  these  unhappy  differences,"  and  able  as  I  was  to  prove 
this  fact,  this  letter,  in  which  he  affected  to  stand  aloof  from 
all  these  misunderstandings,  and  to  take  that  high  ground 
as  a  mediator,  to  which  he  was  certainly  the  last  who  could 
make  pretensions,  this  letter  was  not  calculated  to  excite 
very  pleasant  emotions  in  my  mind.     By  Mr.  Jones's  state- 
ment, however,  it  appears  that  a  month  elapsed  before  I 
addressed  him  on  the  subject  of  it ;  so  that  I  did  not  act 
with  precipitance;  and  my  manner  during  this  period  he 
acknowledges  was  "  particularly  courteous;"   and  hence 
common  charity  would  infer,  that  I  came  to  the  subsequent 
interview  with  no  unpleasant  feelings  towards  him.     I  had 
t^eourse  to  a  personal  conversation,  as  in  every  way  re- 
spectful, and  sdfording  an  opportunity  of  more  particular 
detail  than  a  letter  would  admit,  as  well  as  less  liable  to 
misconstruction.     I  endeavoured  to  satisfy  Mr.  Jones,  that 
the  ground  on  which  I  thought  we  should  decline  an  inter- 
change of  duties  with  Dr.  Moore,  was  not  private  misunder- 
standing, which  I  utterly  disclaimed;  but  his  public  prin- 
*eiples  and  conduct,  particularly  as  evidenced  in  his  recent 
support  of  Mr.  Ireland.     It  appears  however,  that  I  re- 
linquished my  request  of  Mr.  Jones,  not  to  exchange  with 
Dr.  Moore,  for  reasons,  which,  discoloured  and  evidently 
sarcastic  as  is  his  representation  of  them,*  were  highly  ho- 
nourable to  me,  and  a  proof  of  my  insuperable  reluctance  to 
bring  matters  to  an  extremity  with  him.     As  Mr.  Jones  in 
his  letter  evidently  considered  me   as  deeply  involved  in 
these  unhappy  differences,  and  himself  entirely  innocent;  it 
was  necessary  for  me,  in  order  to  vindicate  myself,  to  take 
a  view  of  the  whole  i>eriod  of  our  intercourse.     It  was  im- 
possible to  do  this  consistently  with  justice  and  truth  with- 
out  the  contrast  appearing  strong  between  my  "friendly 
deportment  to  Mr.  Jones,  and  his  unfriendly  and  insidious 
deportment  to  me."f    Hence  I  think  it  will  be  easy,  upon 
the  principles  of  human  nature,  to  account  for  Mr.*  Jones's 
feelings  being  mortified  and  wounded,  without  supposing?  that 
my  manner  was,  as  he  represents  it,  violent  and  insulting. 
Earnest,  indeed,  I  was ;  but  that  my  language  or  manner 
was  either  insulting  op  violent  I  absolutely  deny.    Mr.  Jones 
admits  that  I  several  times  disclaimed  all  intention  of  wound- 
ing  his  feelings.    It  happened  that  truth  and  justice  were  on 
\my  side 5  that  while  I  had  acted  the  most  candid  andi&iendly 


'4 

i 


I 


>N 


'9 


*  Appeal,  p.  53. 


t  Appeal,  p.  50. 


'V 


(     ^05     ) 

^rt  towards  him,  he  had  been  indulging  hostile  sentiments 
towards  me,  and  secretly  endeavouring  to  undermine  my  re- 
putation. Expressions  of  mine  which  exhibited  this  con- 
trast, it  seems,  were  considered  by  him  as  "  tart  and  irri- 
tating ;"  though  they  afforded  no  more  than  a  simple  state- 
ment of  facts.  The^  desire  of  inveigling  IVir.  Jones  into  dis- 
honourable concessions,  which  he  ascribes  to  me,  and  which 
he  takes  so  much  credit  to  himself  for  disappointing,  never 
entered  into  my  mind.  I  had  not,  indeed,  wholly  relin- 
quished the  hope  which  I  had  uniformly  indulged,  that  Mr. 
Jones  could  be  made  sensible  that  he  had  cherished  very 
unfounded  sentiments  of  me,  and  in  consequence  had  acted 
towards  me,  to  say  the  least,  very  unjustly  ;  and  that  if  this 
fact  could  be  impressed  upon  his  mind,  an  ingenuous  sensibi- 
lity would  prompt  hiin  hereafter  to  do  me  justice.  But  I  spon 
found  that  this  hope  was  entirely  chimerical.  He  deiHended 
his  hostility  to  me  by  imjtuting  to  me  an  overbearing  as- 
s^uinption  of  "  autliority  which  did  not  belong  to  me,"  with- 
out specifying  particulars,  though  he  said  my  general  con- 
duct authorized  the  charge.  I  endeavoured  to  prove  to  him, 
by  j)articular  facts,  (which  in  the  review  of  my  conduct  I 
have  already  recited  in  this  address)  that  my  deportment 
had  been  yielding,  conciliating  and  friendly.  I  inquired  of 
him,  how  it  was  possible  that  he  could  give  up  a  man,  for 
whom  he  professed  once  to  have  felt  an  ardent  affection,  for 
such  slight  offences  as  he  imputed  to  me  ;  how  especially  he 
could  accept  acknowledgments  from  me,  which  a  desire  to 
preserve  his  friendship  only  had  forced  from  me,  and  thus 
lead  me  to  believe  that  all  unpleasant  impressions  were  done 
away  from  his  mind ;  while  he  secretly  cherished  them  in  all 
their  force,  and  as  far  as  was  in  his  power  insiduously  assail- 
ed my  reputation.  To  this.  Ids  reply,  by  his  own  confession^ 
was,  that  he  "  acted  according  to  his  natural  constitution."* 
When  I  thus  found  that  he  defended  "  insincerity  and  dupli- 
city" such  as  he  had  manifested,  on  the  plea  of  "  natural 
constitution,"  all  my  hopes  of  making  an  impression  on  him 
of  the  injustice  of  his  conduct  to  me,  appeared  utterly  vain. 
I  was  satisiied  that  it  was  absolutely  impos^ble  that  sincere 
friendship  should  subsist,  whei*e  dispositions  were  avowed 
and  defended  on  the  plea  of  «  natural  constitution,"  which 
were  directly  at  variance  with  this  sacred  virtue.  This  senti- 
ment 1  did  express  to  Mr.  Jones ;  but  at  the  same  time  agreed 
with  him  that  it  was  pi*acticable  and  desirable  that  such  an 
intercourse  should  subsist  between  us  as  our  Christian  obli- 

•  Appeal,  p.  52. 
1* 


%        V 


t 


.* 1    - 


^**f. 


(     i06     ) 

•nations  and  offiejHl  duties  required.  We  parted  on  this  foot- 
fng;  and  my  conduct  to  Lim,  on  all  occasions  afterwards, 
y,-di  Strictly  conformable  to  all  the  rules  of  decorum,  of 
Christian  obligation,  and  of  official  duty. 

In  this  conversation,  the  subject  of  his  accepting  a  prece- 
dence, which  was  my  right,  but  which  4ie  was  disposed  to 
claim,  and  which  I  yielded,  was  not  introduced  by  me  as  a 
cause  of  complaint,  but  to  satisfy  him  that  his  accusation  of 
my  aiming  to  depress  him  was  unfounded.  I  never  stated  to 
]um  tliat  I  was  opposed  to  certain  Clergymen,  whom  he 
wished  to  introduce  into  the  city ;  but  his  active  exeitions 
Ibr  them  were  alluded  to  by  me,  as  proofs  of  the  very  con- 
duct in  him  which  he  attributed  to  them,  and  still  attributes 
m  mc  to  "  ambition  and  self-exaltation." 

It  is  not  my  design  to  follow  Mr.  Jones  through  the  par- 
ticulars of  his  recoixl  of  this  conversation,  which  occupies 
several  pages.     I  should  only  be  involved  in  the  disgusting 
and  painful  task  of  perpetually  contradicting  him.    The  ob- 
.wei-vations  which  I  have  already  made  will  enable  every  can- 
did person  to  con-ect  his  partial  and  erroneous  records.    Cer- 
tain charges,  however,  which  he  brings  against  me,  I  am 
compelled  particularly  to   notice  and   to   conti^adict.     He 
state*  as  offensive  in  me,  my  *•  pressing  closely  upon  him, 
seemingly  with  an  intention  to  prevent  his  leaving  me." 
May  I  not  be  permitted  to  ask,  whether  this  is  not  a  strik- 
ing proof  of  the  habitual  propensity  of  his  mind  to  pervert 
and  to  magnify  triiles  ?   What  more  common  and  more  harm- 
less than  lor  one  person  to  seek  to  prolong  a  conversation 
with  another  by  discovering  a  reluctance  to  let  him  go  ?    He 
•also  states  that  I  accused  him  of  "  cowardice  f  and  that  I 
used  a  *^  brandish  of  the  arm."     Is  it  not  strange  that  these 
reprehensible  acts  in  me  did  not  occur  to  Mr.  Jones  when  he 
first  penned  a  record  of  this  conversation,  June  16th ;  and 
that  he  did  not  recollect  them  until  a  subsequent  record.. 
June  23d  ?     And  is  it  net  equally  sti-ange  that  indistinct  re- 
collection should  be  with  him  sufficient  authority  for  bring- 
ing against  mc  these  serious  charges  ?     His  language  in  re- 
spect to  them  is,  "  as  it  iiuw  strikes  me"— <*  if  1  do  not 
creatly  misial;e."    I  never  upbi-aidcd  him  with  unmanHness 
or  cowardice.    And  if  the  use  of  gesture,  wiUi  a  view  to 
impress  what  is  said,  is  to  be  construed  into  a  threatening 
brandish  of  the  (n-m,  I  am  apprehensive  my  colleague,  if 
not  in  his  private  conversation,  in  his  public  addresses  to  his 
congi-egations,  is  often  guilty  of  this  offence. 

The  day  after  this  conversation  took  place,  Mr.  Jones 
made  a  record  of  it^  and  during  the  whole  of  «  the  ensuing 


m 


.0 


(     107     ) 

Ay«ek'*  it  pceupied  his  mind ;  and  at  "  cliffei'ent  times"  in 
this  period,  he  committed  to  paper  "  additional  remarks," 
until  the  record  was  finally  finished,  «  June  23d,  1810." 
Certainly  the  idea  never  entered  into  my  mind  that  Mr. 
Jones  was  recording  tliese  conversations ;  and  still  less,  that 
he  entertained  the  most  distant  idea  of  presenting  them  to 
the  public  eye.  I  did  not,  therefore,  converse  witli  him  on 
equal  ground.  And  in  candour  and  justice  he  was  bound  to 
caution  me— Be  on  your  guard.  Dr.  Hobart,  for  I  mean  to 
record  your  language  and  deportment,  and  to  bring  them  to 
public  view.  And  yet.  Gentlemen,  had  I  been  thus  warned, 
I  doubt  whethei'  my  language  or  deportment  would  have 
been  different.  F<»r  I  aver,  after  a  most  careful  review  of 
both,  that  on  no  occasion  did  I  display  to  Mr.  Jones  the  ir- 
ritation and  the  violence  which  he  ascribes  to  me.  And  be- 
sides, I  should  hav^  found  it  difficult  to  restrain  that  frank- 
ness which  had  long  led  me,  while  I  considered  Mr.  Jones 
as  my  friend,  to  observe  towards  him  no  disguise;  and 
which,  whatever  may  be  the  inconveniences  to  which  it  some- 
times subjects  a  person  in  his  intercourse  with  the  world,  I 
certainly  deem  infinitely  preferable  to  that  self-command, 
which  can  conceal  the  momentary  feelings  of  resentment, 
only  to  brood  over  them,  till  they  are  cherished  into  the 
settled  purposes  of  revenge.  =* 


With  the  business  of  Mr.  Blackburn,  of  which  Mr.  Jones 
gives  a  long  detail,  1  had  no  concern.  It  was  transacted 
during  my  absence  from  the  city.  No  complaints  of  Mr. 
Jones's  conduct  in  this  affair  were  ever  made  by  Mr.  How 
or  myself.  On  the  contrary,  we  approved  of  his  conduct. 
And  it  appears  from  Mr.  Jones's  own  statement,  that  Mr. 
Lyell  only  mentioned  to  him  an  observation  of  Mr.  Black- 
burn's, that  «  he  (Mr.  Blackburn)  had  learnt  from  Mr.  Fel- 
tus,  that  Mr.  Jones  had  raised  obstacles  in  the  way  of  Mr. 

f*  J"d-^?^  P  ^  **'*  "  Appeal,"  Mr.  Jones  insinuntes  that  "  by  tlie  publio^tion 
f  \f  ,  *""^  *  report  to  the  Convention  in  the  Mngnzine,  1  revived  the  business 
Af  rfe"^.'  Mfhich  was  fast  sinking  into  oblivion,  and  exasperated  his  fi-iends 
and  ramily^  The  Canons  of  the  Church  require  every  instiuice  of  the  degiada- 
tion  ot  a  Clergyman  to  he  stated  in  the  Bishop's  report,  which  is  ahvjfvs  to  be 
printed  in  the  Journr^ls  of  the  Convention.  Ihe  Bishop  acconlJnglv  sta'led  the 
ease  ot  >J/-- Irebnd  s  degradation  in  his  address;  this  was  inserted  on  the  Journals, 
and  published  with  them:  I  transferred  it  to  the  Churchman's  M«g«zine.  Tl.is 
T/as  m>  ottcBce.  I  had  no  personal  reference  to  Mr.  Ireland.  1  intended  alwavs 
1^  insert  the  B.sbop  s  address  in  the  M;.gazine  as  an  article  of  ecclesiastical  neu--. 
1  his  note  wnntd  have  appeared  in  its  proper  iilace;  but  the  charge  in  the  "  Ap- 
peal,    on  which  It  anima«iverts,  escaped  mv  notice 


\ 


A 

I 


(     108     ) 


Blackbnrn's  admission  to  orders,  not  from  objection  to  him, 
but  from  opposition  to  Mr.  Lvell."  As  therefore  no  person 
eriiwinatcd  him,  it  was  very  unnecessary  to  go  into  a  detail 
of  seven  or  eiglit  pages  to  prove  his  innocence;  particularly 
as  he  was  compelled  to  violate  the  confidence  which  Mr, 
Lang's  family  had  placed  in  him,  by  divulging  to  the  public 
information  which  he  confesses  "  he  had  drawd  from  them 
reluctantly,  and  out  of  a  regard  to  truth ;"  and  which,  as  Mr. 
Lang  declares,  Mr.  Jones  promised  should  never  be  mention- 
ed except  confidentially,  to  those  concerned  in  the  biisiness 
of  the  Church.  Yet  this  unnecessary  exposure  of  the  par- 
ticulars of  Mr.  Blackburn's  conduct;  this  violation  of  pri- 
vate confidence;  and  the  consequent  interruption  of  th« 
friendship  between  the  families  of  Mr.  Lang  and  Mr.  Black- 
bum,  were  disregaitled  by  Mr.  Jones,  in  order  to  make  it  ap- 
pear that  myself  and  others  had  persecuted  him,  by  remov- 
ing him  from  the  Standing  Committee,  for  conduct  that  was 
honourable  and  correct.  But  all  the  parties  whom  he  re- 
presents as  principally  concerned  in  that  measure,  ai-e  ready 
solemnly  to  aver,  that  his  conduct  in  this  afiair  had  no  influ- 
ence whatsoever  on  their  determination.  He  also  states* 
that 

The  unwarrantable  opposition  which  he  has  uniformly  met 
with  from  myself  and  others  has  arisen  from  his  dis- 
approving  of  the  controversy  on  the  subject  of  episco- 
pacy. 

The  disingenuousness  and  injustice  of  this  charge  I  have 
deeply  felt.  So  far  from  entertaining  the  roost  distant  idea 
of  persecuting  Mr.  Jones,  or  any  other  person,  on  account  of 
his  opposition  to  this  controversy,  I  have  been  seriously  appre- 
hensive of  persecution  myself,  and  have  only  plead  for  tolera- 
tion in  the  conscientious  avowal  and  defence  of  my  opinions. 
Had  an  inordinate  love  of  popularity,  as  my  accusers  repre- 
sent, been  my  ruling  passion.  I  erred  most  egregiously  in  the 
course  which  I  pursued  to  obtain  it.  Could  1  have  sacrificed 
to  this  unw  orthy  principle  my  sense  of  duty,  the  Church  and 
her  ministry  would  never  have  found  in  me  an  advocate  and 
defender.  Public  sentiment,  I  knew,  was  averse  to  every 
thing  like  controversy  on  religion.  I  was  perfectly  aware 
that  many  whose  judgment  I  respected,  whose  friendship  I 
valued,  strongly  doubted  of  the  expediency  of  the  public  dis- 
cussion of  these  particular  subjects.    It  was  painful  to  act 

*  Appeal,  p.  22. 


(     *09     ) 

contrary  to  their  judgment  and  advice.  The  edmm  too, 
which  has  been  heaped  upon  me  by  those  who  "  are  with- 
out,'* is  greater  than  has  often  fallen  to  the  lot  of  one  indi- 
vidual to  sustain.  And  some  too  of  "  my  own  household'^ 
have  not  failed  to  employ  to  my  disadvantage  my  avowal  and 
defence  of  Church  principles ;  and  to  paint  me  as  so  intolc" 
rant  both  in  practice  and  in  principle,  that  they  deem  me 
worthy  of  a  comparison  with  Archbishop  Laud.*  I  can  most 
seriously  declare,  that  I  have  sometimes  felt  the  apprehension 
that  my  usefulness  might  *  be  afiected  by  the  odium  raised 
against  me.  It  never  occurred  to  me,  therefore,  to  commence 
a  system  of  persecution  against  any  person  for  his  opposi- 
tion to  the  conti'oversy.  Had  the  idea  occurred  to  me,  I  must 
have  felt  that  with  respect  to  this  subject,  I  did  not  occupy 
ground  strong  enough  for  such  ofiensive  measures.  I 
only  complained  once  or  twice  to  Mr.  Jones  of  his  want  of 
frankness  in  speaking  unfavourably  to  others  of  a  book  of 
wiiich  I  thought  he  approved ;  and  of  endeavouring  unne- 
cessarily to  render  it  unpopular.  How  far  he  is  correct  in 
saying  that  *^  he  never  approved  of  the  controversy,"!  will 
appear  from  the  following  statement  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Rudd^ 
now  of  Elizabeth-Town,  New-Jersey,  but  who  officiated  fop 
some  time  at  Huntington,  Long-Island. 

<<  As  to  the  assertion  of  Mr.  Jones  in  his  pamphlet, 
tending,  as  I  conceive,  to  disafiTect  some  minds  towards  Dr. 
Hobart,  that  he  (Mr.  Jones)  had  always  been  opposed  to 
the  controversy  in  which  Dr.  Hobart  was  engaged,  on  the 
subject  of  Church  government ;  I  am  bftund,  by  a  convic- 
tion of  duty,  to  state,  that  I  have  a  distinct  recollection  of 
a  conversation  which  I  had  with  Mr.  Jones  on  this  subject 
at  Huntington,  on  Long-Island,  in  the  autumn  of  1805^ 
when  Dr.  Hobart  had  resolved  to  collect  the  essays  which; 
originally  appeared  in  the  Albany  Centinel.  In  this  con- 
versation, Mr.  Jones  did  unequivocally,  and  expressly  de- 
clare as  his  opinion,  that  the  controversy  would  be  of 
great  utility.  He  further  particularly  approved  of  the 
pieces  signed  Cyprian,  and  a  Layman ;  and  likewise  of 
the  part  which  Dr.  Hobart  was  about  to  be  engaged  in, 
of  collecting  the    essays,    and  making  remarks   upon 

them,":}: 

JOHN  C.RUBD. 

*  See  Mr.  Swordr/s  statement,  p.  50  and  51  of  this  Jidflifss. 
f  Appe!«!,  p.  'J2. 

:):  The  cUftVrent  staieraents  of  Mr.  MtuU]  in  this  ndcJrrss,  were  frirnlslird  in  tmt 
sitr.temcnt.     I  have  divitietl  it  for  the  convenience  of  rcfereiictf. 


y 


(    110    ) 

'  The  controversy,  however,  of  which  it  seems  Mr.  Jones 
©nee  approved,  was  found  to  be  unpopular;  and  how  far  a 
wish  to  avail  himself  of  any  advantage  over  me  which  this 
circumstance  might  give  him,  influenced  his  change  of  opi- 
nion, it  is  not  for  me  to  say.  But  I  again  solemnly  declare^ 
that  the  thought  never  entered  my  mind  of  opposing  Mr. 
Jones  or  any  other  person  on  account  of  their  discounte- 
nancing the  controversy.  And  until  a  few  weeks  before  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  "  Appeal,"  the  idea  that  he  or  any  other  per- 
son imputed  to  me  such  a  design  never  occurred  to  mc.  Then 
I  found  that  attempts  had  secretly  been  made  to  turn  the  un- 
popularitv  of  this  controversy  to  my  injury;  and  to  circulate 
the  idea,  that  a  system  of  persecution  was  organizing  against 
all  who  ventured  to  oppose  it.  These  ungenerous  attempts 
(may  I  not  call  them)  were  not  successful  in  one  quarter, 
where  I  know  they  were  made.  In  another,  I  have  reason 
to  believe  they  were  exerted,  and  with  more  success. 

It  is  somewhat  extraordinary  that  the  individual  whom 
his  accusers  represent  as  so  intolerant,  has  generally  been 
the  advocate,  in  the  Conventions  of  the  Church,  of  moderate 
and  conciliating  measures,  and  adverse  to  enforcing,  by  ec- 
clesiastical authority,  principles  which  he  deemed  correct  in 
theory.  That  this  has  been  my  uniform  conduct,  I  can  ap- 
peal to  all  those  with  whom  I  have  been  associated  in  the 
transaction  of  the  business  of  the  Church.  But  as  this 
«hai^  of  violence  and  intolerance  is  a  conspicuous  one  in 
Mr.  Jones's  <<  Appeal/'  and  is  urged  by  him  in  the  strongest, 
terms,  I  must  be  permitted  to  repel  it  by  some  particular 
statements.  ' 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Moore  and  myself  attended  the  General 
Convention  at  Baltimore,  as  Clem*al  Ileputies ;  and  he  rea- 
dily answere<l  the  following  inquiry,  which  I  recently  ad- 
dressed to  him. 

*<  ({uest.  At  the  General  Convention,  in  Baltimore,  in 
1808,  did  you  consi<ler  me  as  the  advocate  of  intolerant 
measures ;  on  the  contrar}',  was  I  not  at  that  time,  in  op- 
position to  the  sentiments  of  some,  with  whom  I  gene- 
rally acted,  the  advocate  of  measures  deemed  by  you  and 
your  particular  friends  in  that  Convention,  modei'ate  and 
conciliating  ? 

**  mlns.  Your  conduct  at  that  Convention  was,  in  my 
opinion,  moderate  and  conciliating.' 


99 


The  Rev.  Mr.  Bull,'  of  Pennsylvania,  was  a  member  of 
the  same  Convention,  and  Dr.  Moore  and  himself  generaUy 


» 


I 


C  lu   ) 

agreed  in  their  views.  My  ignorance  of  the  post  town  iu 
the  vicinity  of  wliich  he  resides  has  prevented  my  obtaining 
his  own  testimony. 

••  While  attending  the  General  Convention,  in  May 
last,  at  New-Haven,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Bull,  of  Pennsylvania, 
conversing  with  me  on  the  subject  6f  Mr.  Jones's  "  Ap- 
peal," observed,  that  he  had  long  been  acquainted  with 
Dr.  Ilobart,  and  had  witnessed  his  mild  and  amiable  de- 
portment In  the  General  Convention,  held  at  Balti- 
more, in  1808,  he  said,  that  Dr.  Hobart  had,  by  Ids  mo- 
derate and  conciliatory  conduct,  gained  to  himself  the 
esteem  and  affection  of  many  of  his  brethren ;  that  in  that 
body  thei'e  was  considerable  jarring  of  opinions,  and  warm 
debate,  through  all  which  Dr.  Hobart  acted  as  a  media- 
tor, and  thereby,  he  was  persuaded,  had  contributed  to 
the  interests  and  peace  of  the  Church ;  that  he  and  others 
recollected  the  conduct  of  Dr.  Hobart,  on  that  occasion, 
wiili  gratitude  and  satisfaction. 

*•  On  our  way  from  New-York,  returning  from  the  Ge- 
nei-ul  Convention,  on  the  27th  of  May,  Mr.  Bull  again 
introduced  a  conversation  on  the  same  subject,  and  stated 
to  me,  that  he  had  either  that  day  or  the  day  l>efoi*e  met 
'^  Mr.  Jones  in  the  city,  and  in  conversing  with  him  on  the 
subject  of  Dr.  Hobart's  appointment  to  the  Episcopate,  he 
declared  that  he  observed  to  Mr.  Jones,  that  he  could  not 
consider  Dr.  Hobart  as  a  violent  and  intolerant  man ;  that 
his  moderate  and  conciliatory  conduct  at  Baltimore  was 
still  in  his  mind ;  that  in  the  Convention  at  New-Haven 
he  had  seen  him  evincing  no  other  sentiments  and  dispo- 
sitions ;  and  that  he  could  see  no  reason  for  believing  that 
Dr.  Hobart  would  make  an  over-bearing  Bishop. 

"  In  the  preceding  statement  I  have,  as  far  as  my  me- 
mory will  serve,  employed  the  language  madfe  use  of  by 
Mr.  Bull ;  and  have  no  hesitation  in  declaring,  that  it  is 
not  only  substantially  correct,  but  that  it  is  very  nearly 
so  in  expression. 

''  JOHN  C.  RUDD,  Rector  of      • 
"  St.  John's  Church,  Elizabeth-Town,  New-Jersey. 
"^  EUzaheth'Town,  June  29,  1811." 

The  following  letter  is  from  one  who  has  certainly  had 
I  he  fullest  opportunity  of  forming  a  correct  judgment  of  me. 

••  Dear  Sir,  ^«  Philadelphia,  July  3,  1811. 

"  In  answer  to  your  inquiry,  whether  1  have  knowR 


V' 


(     112     ) 

vou  to  manifest  intolei-ance,  in  the  conducting  of  tlie  bu- 
siness of  our  General  Conventions ;  I  can  conscientiously 
declare,  that  no  instances  of  such  a  spirit  have  passed 
under  my  notice ;  and  that,  on  the  contrary,  I  have  known 
YOU  solicitous  for  the  obtaining  of  an  a^^reement  to  such 
a  degree,  as  produced  considerable  sacrifice  of  individual 
opinion  on  your  part.    This  happeneil  especially  at  the 
Convention  in  Baltimore,  in  1808,  >Yhen  you  and  Dr. 
Kemp  induced  Bishop  Clagget  and  me  to  make  changes 
in  some  of  our  communications ;  which  had  been  accept- 
able to  the  Convention  generally,  and  to  yourselves^  in 
particular;  but  were  offensive  to  a  minority. 
;       "  What  I  have  said  in  reference  to  Conventions  applies 
to  your  conduct  generally,  so  far  as  it  has  faUen  under 

•  my  notice. 

^     /  "I  remain 

"  Your  affectionate  Brother, 

"  WM.  WHITE.'' 

And  yet  Mr.  Jones  fliink«  proper  to  represent  me  as  an 
Ambitious,  intolerant,  persecuting  iniin.    And  that  he  might 
«  pull  me  down,"  the  alarm  was  sounded  hy  him,  that  my 
advaneement  would  be  the  commeneement  of  a  «  Scene  ol 
tyranny  that  the  Chui-ch  has  not  witnessed  smee  the  days  ot 
Archbishop  Laud."*    I  well  recollect,  that  on  my  return 
from  the  General  Convention  at  Baltimore,  I  did  not  find 
some  of  those  who  now  accuse  me  of  intolerance  very  cor- 
dial in  their  approbation  of  the  tolerant  measures  I  then  ad- 
vocated.    And  at  this  period  also,  I  well  i-eeoUeet,  com- 
menced the  active  exertions  of  Mr.  Jones  to  introduce  into 
&is  diocese  a  Clergyman,  whose  talents  and  piety  I  have 
ever  honoured;  whose  principles  are  the  same  with  mine; 
but  wHh  whom,  at  that  Convention,  I  considered  it  my  mis- 
fortune to  he  compelled  to  differ,  as  to  *»>«  P'^^f  f^/S 
to  which  these  principles  were  to  be  carried,  and  the  mode 
hv  which  they  were  to  be  enforced.    Perhaps  self-partiality 
blinds  me.    But  I  have  always  tliought  my  accuser  not  quite 
so  tolerant  as  myself  in  his  views  of  governing.    As  an  in- 
stance, I  this  moment  recollect  that  at  a  late  Convention  ot 
the  Church  in  this  State,  he  introduced  «.  P™?"?*^""  *»,•; 
nrescribinB  a  set  of  psalm  tunes,  and  permitting  ^themotfl^ 
?rte  u4d  in  the  congregations.    This  proposition,  which 
eould  not  have  been  enforced  without  endangering  the  peaee 
of  our  congregations,  and  which  was  an  mfnngem^int  ol 

» 

' »  Mr:  SwoHT/s  stttenxontj  p.  51  oC-this  address.  .^^ 


f^ 


(     "3     ) 

the  power  vested  in  every  minister,  of  regplatin^  the  music 
of  his  Church,  was  mu^ed  by  him  only  in  consequence  of 
the  decided  opposition  to  it  manifested  by  myself  and  others. 

The  opposition  to  Mr.  Jones,  evidenced  particularly  by 

V  His  remiyval  from  the  Standing  ComrmtteCf . 

of  which  he  so  much  complains,  arose  from  no  private  or 
personal  considerations,  nor  from  any  of  the  causes  which 
he  has  stated.  =^  To  counteract  and  to  discountenance  the 
efiR>rts  of  any  man,  who  aims  to  excite  parties  in  the  Church, 

•  To  this  remark  Mr.  Jones's  conduct,  in  what  be  says  was  styled  a  **  speculating 
scheme,"  is  in  some  degree  an  exception.  In  this,  Mr.  Jones's  conduct  appeared  to 
myself  and  others  reprehensible,  and  to  reflect  disgrace  on  the  clerictd  profession. 
Mr.  Jones  admits  that  the  adverttseraent  in  the  newspapers,  by  these  who  were  ap- 
B<Mn ted  to  receive  subscriptions  to  the  Mechanics'  Bank,  "  limited  the  number 
which  each  individual  should  subscribe  to  not  exceeding  50  shares."    .Here  was  a 
condition  of  subscription,  which  Mr.  Jones,  by  obtaining  several  persons  to  subscribe 
for  him,  by  evasion,  violated.    "  On  conversing  with  the  Cashier,"  be  observes,  "  I 
have  found  that  this  thing  was  perfectly  understood.'*  This  does  not  iippear  to  me 
a  justification.    His  mode  of  expression  implies,  that  he  did  not  know  the  thing 
^as  so  understood,  until  after  he  had  subscribed.    Other  Cl^^men  who  I  am 
told  subscribed  did  not  so  understand  it;  for  they  did  not  resort  to  these  means  ot* 
enlarging  the  number  of  their  shares.     And  T  think  it  is  evident  the  Directors  of 
file  Bank  did  not  suppose  that  the  Clergy  would  resort  to  these  means.    For  thef 
fpportioned  to  the  Clergy  mpi-e  than  the  number  of  shares  to  which  they  were 
sUictlv  entitled;  a  favour  which  would  have  been  unnecessary  had  it;  Been  sup- 
posed'that  they  had  already  procured  a  much  greater  number.    At  any  rate,  Oler- 
fymen  should  avoid  even  «  the  appearance  of  evil."    What  is  "  understood    to 
be  correct  among  m'en  of  business,  and  what  Clergymen  should  understand  t6  be 
correct,  or  at  least  expedient^  are  sometimes  distinct  hiquiries.    The  distinciion 
would  have  been  well  worthy  of  Mr.  Joqes*s  attention ;  ^  parti cu lark  at  a  time 
when  he  was  discovering  so  much  laudable  sensilHlity  to  the  purity  of  the  clerical 
character,  by  opposing  Mr.  Blackburh  on  account  of  his  inordinate  love  of  money, 
iKsplayed  by  his  "  speculating  and  stockjobbing."    This  gentleman's  conduct,  in 
tWl  same  business,  I  am  well  informed,  afforded  an  honourable  contrast  to  that 
qFMt.  Jones.    Mr.  Blackburn  declined  to  avail  himself  of  the  offer  of  some  of 
bis  friends  to  subscribe  for  him;  but  told  them,  that  if  they  woubl  subscribe,  he 
would  afterwards  purchase  the  shares  from  them,  if  they  were  disposed  to  sell, 
at  the  current  advance.    Had  Mr.  Jones  pursued  this  plan,  in  order  to  "  invest  foi» 
growth'*  (Appeal,  p.  6)  the  money  which  he  had  to  spare,  he  would  generonsly 
hive  thrown  into  the  bands  of  those,  who  had  not  the  means  of  holding  the  shares 
for  which  they  subsorihed,  some  little  emolument,  and  would,  it  appears  to  me,  in 
a  more  unexceptionable  way,  have  answered  bis  own  purpose.    The  persons  who 
subscribed  for  him  were  not  "  «tock-jobbei-s  gnd  speculators."    They  were.  I  am, 
told,  respectable  mechanics.     Apparently  with  the  view  of  exculpatmg  himself 
from  any  selfish  motive,  he  observes,  that  the  money  was  held  by  bira**in  tru»t. 
But  was  it  not  in  Inw^  for  a  relative  so  neai'  to  him,  that  the  advantage  which 
was  detived  from  it,  may  be  said  to  be  his  own?    However,  a  man  ou^ht  not  to 
have  done  for  anotii^r,  in  this  case,  what  it  would  have  been  incorrect  in  hire  to 
do  for  hrmsel€  ,        V 

As  Mr.  Jones,  in  his  ««  Appeal,"  (p.  67,  68.  69,)  states  this  among  the  other 
.  calumnious  reports  which  "  were  set  about,"  ahd  which  "  had  ^  abrowl,'    wtiil 
l»d  been  "  propagated,"  by  the  agency  of  myself  and  others,  with  a  view  to,  in- 
jure him,  self-defei^e  seemed  to  require  that  I  should  notice  it.    1  thought,  and 
■till  think,  that  in  this  business  Mr.  Jones  implicated  his  character,  if  not  as  a 
<  man:  versed  in  money  motters;  at  least  as  a  Clerg>man.     But  ccrtaialy  this  Ipu- 
instance  would  uot  UaTe  led  to  arfv  measures  a^ains^  him. 


-'5 


'•I 

( 


r'  i 


-ami  thus  to  disturb  her  peace,  is  a  measure,  of  the  justice 
and  general  expediency  of  which  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
That  this  was,  for  years,  the  systematic  aim  of  Mr.  Jones 
cannot,  I  think,  admit  of  a  doubt  with  any  who  have  pe- 
rused  the  documents  and  the  detail  exhibited  in  the  preced- 
ing pages.  To  continue  in  office  an  individual  who  had  ma- 
nifested such  tempers  and  designs,  would  only  be  continuing 
to  him  the  power  effectually  to  carry  them  into  execution. 
To  bestow  the  confidence  of  the  Church  on  those  who  had 
indulged,  by  the  most  unwarrantable  acts,  those  selfish  and 
jealous  passions  which  are  subversive  of  her  honour  and  her 
peace,  would  be  not  less  injurious  to  her,  than  incompati- 
ble with  truth  and  justice.  Most  certainly,  the  great  bodj 
of  the  Clergy  entertained  the  conviction,  that  Mr.  Jones,  by 
iiis  conduct,  had  justly  forfeited  their  confidence;  and,  as 
honest  and  indejiendent  men,  they  withheld  from  him  their 
suffrage,  and  endeavoured  to  effect  his  removal  from  office. 
They  exercised  an  indubitable  right,  in  a  way  that  they 
thought  the  honour  and  the  interests  of  the  Church  de- 
manded. How  can  this  act  merit  the  appellation  of  a  dis- 
honourable persecution  of  Mr.  Jones  ?  If  in  every  case  ia 
which  the  Convention  chooses  to  remove  an  individual  from 
an  office  which  is  elective  an  outcry  of  persecution  is  to  be 
raised,  the  freedom  of  election  will  be  endangered,  and  th« 
intei^sts  and  honour  of  the  Church  may  often  suffer  by  the 
continuance  in  office  of  unworthy  men.  The  notoriety  of 
this  proceeding  against  Mr.  Jones  has  been  owing  principally 
to  himself  and  to  his  friends.  But  for  their  representations, 
few  persons  except  the  members  of  the  Convention  would 
have  kiiown  of  his  removal,  and  still  fewer  been  led  to  re- 
ganl  it  as  of  any  consequence.  At  a  Convention  previous 
Dr.  Moore  was  not  re-elected  as  a  Deputy  to  the  General 
Convention,  a  station  which  he  had  filled.  He  and  his 
friends  were  silent ;  and  I  question  whether  a  dozen  per- 
sons, except  those  who  were  members  of  the  Convention, 
knew  of  the  circumstance.  The  peace  of  the  Church  was 
not  endangered ;  Dr.  Moore's  public  reputation  was  not 
wounded ;  and  his  conduct  on  this  occasion  affords  a  digni- 
fied and  honourable  contrast  to  that  of  Mr.  Jones. 

Of  the  reasonableness,  justice,  and  gejiet^al  expediency  of 
thia  measure  I  was  finally  fully  satisfied.  Of  its  particular 
expediency,  I  doubted  to  the  last,  from  its  affording  Mr. 
Jones  an  opportunity  of  raisiBg  an  outcry  of  persecution. 
And,  such  is  human  nature,  that  there  is  often  greater  sen- 
Mhilk^  to  this  outcry,  than  there  is  to  the  dictates  of  justice 
or  the  arguments  of  truth.   TUat  I  did  not  origimate  or  prc*» 


./ 


1^ 


(    lis    ) 

this  measure ;  that  I  even  delayed  it ;  and  that  it  was  finally 
carried  into  effect  without  my  instrumentality,  wilf  appear 
from  the  perusal  of  the  statement  of  Mr.  Lycll,  alrekdy 
exhibited,"*  and  from  the  subsequent  statement  of  Mr.  How. 

-.  «  .  • 

^<  In  the  autlimn  of  1 809,  some  of  the  Clergy  and 
Laity  were  of  opinion  that  Mr.  Jones  should  be  removed 
from  the  office  of  member  of  the  Standing  Committee. 
They  regai'ded  him  as  having  acted  in  so  shameful  a 
manner  as  to  make  it  the  duty  of  the  Convention  -  to 
show  all  those  who  might  be  disposed  to  raise  up  par- 
ties in  the  Church,  and  to  disturb  its  peace,  that  such 
conduct  would  not  be  tolerated.  Mr.  Jones  would  then 
have  b**en  removed  from  office  but  for  the  decided  op- 
•  position  made  to  the  measure  by  Dr.  Hobart.  And,  in 
the  fall  of  1810,  when  Mr.  Jones  was  removed  from 
office.  Dr.  Hobart  certainly  did  not  actively  co-operate 
in  the  thing.  He  did  nothing  more  than  silently  ac- 
quiesce in  it  as  correct.  And  it  required  considerable 
effort  in  the  friends  of  the  measure  to  bring  him  to  such 
acquii^scence.  In  this,  1  think,  he  acted  erroneously: 
for  Mr.  Jones's  conduct  had  been  so  dishonourable,  that 
I  then  thought,  and  do  now  think,  it  was  the  duty  of 
every  upright  man  to  set  upon  it  the  stamp  of  his  most 
decided  condemnation. 

«  THOMAS  Y.  HOW.'* 


it.-«j 


That  with  a  view  to  this  measure,  or  on  the  subject  of 
Mr.  Jones's  conduct  in  general,  I  had  not  been  at  any  pains 
to  influence  the  mind  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Bowen,  will  appear 
from  the  following  letter. 

"  JVcTO-Forfe,  July  10,  1811. 
"  Right  Rev.  and  dear  Sir, 

*<  In  answer  to  your  inquiry  it  gives  me  pleasure  to  de- 
clare, that  I  recollect  no  conversation  had  with  you,  prior 
to  the  removal  of  Mr.  Jones  from  the  Standing  Committee, 
in  October,  1810,  in  which  it  appeared  to  me  to  be  your 
wish  or  design  to  impress  my  mind  in  a  manner  unfavoura- 
ble to  that  gentleman.  I  remember  an  interview  with  you, 
which  occurred  early  after  my  removal  into  the  Dieeese, 
in  1809,  at  which  the  unhappy  want  of  the  friendly  and 
fraternal  intercourse  which  I  had  witnessed  several  years 
before  bettVeen  yourseli' and  Mr.  Jones  having  been  re- 
ferred  to^by  me,  you  declared  tlnit  you  were  uneoiifrei^c^ 

•  Page  23  of  this  Rddi-ei?. 


t 


^V  ,  it""^ 


(     116     ) 

fki'  havingr  in  any  manner  injured  Mr.  Jones,  either  in  his 
leelin^Sf  his  reputation,  or  interest ;  that  you  were  con*, 
scious,  on  the  other  hand,  of  having  endeavoured  to  serve 
him  in  every  possible  manner,  and  referred  me  to  faeta 
and  testimonies  wliich  mi§;ht  satisfy  me  that  you  might 
reasonably  entertain  a  sense  of  injury  done  you  by  Mr. 
Jones,  and  not  he  of  any  done  him  by  you,  either  direetly 
©r  indirectly.  The  conversation  however  on  the  subject, 
«n  this,  and  on  every  other  occasion  on  which  I  can  re- 
member it  to  have  taken  place,  prior  to  the  period  above 
mentioned,  was  cursory  and  desultory ;  leaving  on  my 
Bund  with  respect  to  yourself,  no  other  impression  than 
it  found,  viz.  that  you  had  not  done  any  thing  to  jus- 
tify the  displeasui'e  of  Mr.  Jones  against  you ;  and  with 
respect  to  himself,  no  distinct  impression  of  any  circum- 
stances in  his  behaviour  which  demanded  the  resentment 
of  yourself  or  of  his  brethren  in  genei-al.  I  can,  without 
the  least  apprehension  of  error,  declare,  that  until  after 
^e  removal  of  Mr.  Jones  from  the  Standing  Committee, 
when  some  remarks  of  mine  relative  to  that  measure  led 
you  to  a  particw/flr  exjdanation  of  the  circumstances  which, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  Clergy,  so  generally  both  demanded 
and  justified  it,  you  had  ever  observed  in  conversation 
with  me  concerning  that  gentleman,  the  utmost  delicacy 
and  reserve. 

V  "With  the  greatest  respect  and  affection, 

"  1  am,  &c. 

"  N.  BOWEN.*' 


My  conduct  to  JWr.  Harris  at  the  Convention  when  Mr. 
Janes  was  removed  from  ojice^ 

is  another  subject  of  crimination.  Until  I  received  the  fol- 
lowing statement  from  Mr.  Harris,  in  answer  to  my  in- 
quiries, 1  never  su|>{>osed  that  he  entertained  the  impres- 
sions of  my  conduct  which  Mr.  Jones  states,  or  that  the 
events  of  that  Convention,  or  any  circumstances  connected 
with  them,  had  produced  a  change  in  the  affectionate  senti- 
ments which  he  once  cherished  for  miD. 

Qiiest.  "  Did  you  at  any  time  complain  to  me  of  my 
treating  you  unkindly  in  the  Convention  last  fall ;  and 
since  that  time  have  you  not  expressed  to  me  your  sincere 
and  warm  affection  for  me  ?'* 


(  iiy  ) 

•Ans*  <^<  I  did  not  complain  to  you,  but  if  t  ^onld'saV 
that  I  was  not  hurt  at  some  observationa  of  yours  at  the 
last  fall  Convention,  I  should  say  that  which  is  false.  I 
did  not,  however,  as  I  soon  afterwards  told  you,  think 
them  to  be  of  sufficient  consequence  to  be  the  occasion  of  a 
quarrel.  Since  the  fall  Convention  I  am  not  conscious  of 
having  expressed  a  warm  affection  for  you ;  on  the  contrary^ 
your  saying  as  you  did,  that  you  was  doubtful  of  the  policy, 
but  that  you  had  no  doubt  as  to  the  justice  of  turning  Mrt 
Jones  out  of  his  offices  at  the  last  Convention,  materially 
altered  the  opinion  I  had  formerly  entertained  of  yoo^ 
Until  that  time  both  Mr.  Jones  and  Dr.  Moore  are  ready 
to  do  me  the  justice  to  say  that  they  had  not  considered 
me  as  taking  a  decided  part." 

After  delivering  me  the  above,  Mr.  Harris  directed  what 
follows  to  be  inserted  immediately  after  the  words  "  warm 
affection  for  you :"  ^ 

"  All  intercourse  between  us  was  not  however  broken  off. 
You  came  several  times  to  my  house,  and  in  return  1  waS 
several  times  at  yours.  In  one  of  these  interviews,  wheii 
I  intimated  that  it  was  my  belief  that  some  of  your  partH 
cular  friends  had  been  ehiefly  instrumental  in  turning  Mr. 
Jones  out  of  his  offices,  you  said  that  you  were  consulted  in 
the  business,  and  that  it  was  done  by  your  consent.  When 
I  exclaimed  against  the  injustice  of  the  measure,  you  ob- 
served, that  you  was  doubtful  as  to  the  pcdicy,  but  that  you 
bad  no  doubt  as  to  the  justice  of  the  thing.  This  expression 
of  yours,  together  with  other  observations  in  the  course 
of  our  conversations,  did,  I  must  confess,  materially  alter 
the  opinion  I  had  formerly  entertained  of  you.  Until  the 
period  alluded  to,  both  Mr.  Jones  and  Dr.  Moore  will  do 
me  the  justice  to  say,  that  they  had  not  considered  me 
as  taking  a  decided  part.'* 

It  certainly  has  been  my  misfortune  to  havB  been  often 
unsuspecting  of  the  unfavourable  sentiments  of  others  to- 
wards me.  I  only  lament  that  Mr.  Harris  should  hare 
«'  materially  changed  his  opinion  of  me,"  without  giving 
me  the  most  distant  intimation  of  this  change.  In  the  con- 
versation on  the  subject  of  Mr.  Jones's  removal  from  office, 
I  frankly  stated  to  him  my  views  of  that  measure,  in  which 
I  knew  I  differed  from  him.  But  I  really  thouglit  I  had 
more  reason  to  complain  of  his  espousing  the  cause  of  Mr. 
Jones,  than  he  had  to  complain  of  my  opposing  a  man  who 


1 


(     lis     ) 

h:id  acted  a  part  so  dishonourable,  and  soinjurkms  to  the 
Church.  His  conduct  in  that  business  I  believe  vfus 
proHipted  by  conscientious  lootives,  and  I  cherished  for  him 
jny  former  regard.  I  met  him  after  the  Convention^  for 
the  first  time,  with  every  expression  of  affection,  which  was 
fully  reciprocated.  And  our  intercourse  continued,  as  I 
supposed,  on  its  former  friendly  footing,  until  within  a  few 
weeks  of  the  late  Special  Convention,  when  I  indeed  con- 
cluded from  the  extreme  distance  and  reserve  of  Mr.  Har- 
ris, that  he  had  changed  liis  opinion  of  me.  But  the  first 
intimation  of  the  cause  as  well  as  of  the  time  of  the  ch^ige^ 
is  contained  in  the  above  answer  to  my  inquiries. 

My  offence  was  calling  Mr.  Harris  to  order. 

But  the  mei-e  circumstance  of  calling  a  gentleman  to  or- 
der is  neVer  considered  in  any  public  body  as  unwarrantable 
or  rude;  In  the  ease  in  which  I  am  aceused,  the  occasion 
justified  it.  For  Mr.  Harris,  with  a  view  to  justify  his  re- 
signing liis  office  as  member  of  the  Standing  Committee,  was 
attributing  unworthy  and  most  undoubtedly  erroneous  mo- 
tives to  an  act  of  the  Convention.  The  imputation  was 
disorderly,  and  was  calculated  to  irritate ;  and  to  disturb 
the  peace  of  that  b<»dy.  I  fully  acquitted  and  do  still  ac- 
quit Mr.  Harris  of  any  such  intention.  My  manner  was 
in  every  respect  courteous  and  conciliating.  For  in  the 
very  next  sentence  which  succeeded  my  calling  that  gentle- 
man to  order,  I  declared  <<  that  I  was  satisfied  there  was  no 
person  present  more  disposed  than  he  was  to  respect  the 
motives  of  his  brethren  and  of  the  Convention,  and  to  pre- 
serve its  peace;  and  that  I  was  therefore  confident  he  would 
on  i-eflection  abstain  from  remarks  calculated  to  impeach  the 
one  and  to  disturb  the  otlier."  Mr.  Jones  admits*  that  I  was 
pointed  at  by  Mr.  Harris,  and  addressed  as  a  disturber  of 
the  peace  with  whom  he  had  ineffectually  laboured.  "  God 
knows,  and  tliat  gentleman  knows  that  I  have  laboured  hard 
to  preserve  the  peace  of  the  Church."  Indecorous  as  were 
the  manner  and  the  remark  of  Mr.  Harris,  and  quick-tem- 
pered as  I  am  represented  to  be,  I  can  appeal  to  the  persons 
present  whether  I  did  not  mildly  remark  that  the  gentleman 
had  misunderstood  me ;  that  so  far  from  doubting  his  dispo- 
sition to  preserve  peace,  I  had  stated  my  confidence  in  this  dis- 
position as  a  reason  for  my  hope  that  he  would  desist  from  his 
remarks.  Of  this  circumstance  Mr.  Jones  makes  no  men- 
tion. My  conduct  in  this  business  met  with  the  approbation 
of  many  of  the  members  both  lay  and  clerical^  who  thanked 


M 


(     119     ) 

me  for  th  e  prompt,  discreet,  and  effectual  manner  in  which  I 
arrested  a  discussion  that  Mr.  Harris  was  provoking,  which 
would  have  thrown  the  Conventioninto  a  violent  ferment.  I 
could  procure  numerous  testimonies  to  this  effect.  I  con- 
tent myself  with  the  following. 

«  I  attended  the  Episcopal  Convention,  which  met  in 
the  City  of  New-York  in  the  month  of  October  last;  and 
I  was  near  to  Dr.  Hobart  when  he  made  the  speech 
which  interrupted  Mr.  Harris,  and  is  referred  to  in  Mr. 
Jones's  pamphlet  against  Dr.  Hobart.  I  was  attentive  to 
what  passed.  The  speech  was  a  short  one.  The  matter 
of  it  appeared  to  me  delicate  and  proper ;  and  I  saw  no- 
thing in  its  manner  that  looked  like  indecorum ;  or  that 
discovered  any  other  warmth,  than  the  earnestness  and 
animation  common  to  Dr.  Hobart's  public  speaking. 

,,  "  ROBERT  TROUP. 

«  JVew-Fork,  July  S,  1811." 

A  tnjling  remark  which  at  a  meeting  of  the  Clergy  I  made 
to  Mr.  Harris  conc€:rning  Mr.  JoneSf 

constitutes  another  distinct  subject  of  complaint  Mr.  Har- 
ris had  often  spoken  to  me  with  great  commendation,  of  the 
coolness  of  temper  and  self-command  which  Mr.  Jones  pos- 
sessed. An  event  occurred  when  Mr.  Jones,  by  his  own 
statement,*  "  felt  indignant  at  Mr.  Lyell  for  applying  the 
appellation  of  «  false"  to  what  contessedly  was  false,  and 
when  he  made^  to  say  the  least,  a  remark  as  indecowus 
as  any  which  Mr.  Lyell  employed.  I  in  voluntarily,  and  with 
perfect  good  nature,  called  the  attention  of  Mr.  Harris, 
who  sat  next  to  me,  to  this  conduct  of  Mr.  Jones,  as  an 
illustration  of  the  coolness  of  temper  and  self-command 
which  had  been  so  often  commended.  Mr.  Harris,  with 
what  "  truth  and  justice"  it  is  unnecessary  to  say,  but  with 
an  angry  tone  and  manner  not  common  to  lam,  replied, 
"You,  Dr.  Hobart,  of  all  men,  ought  to  be  t,he  last  to 
make  such  a  remark."  This  Mr.  Jones  records.  But  Mr. 
Harris  forgot  to  mention  to  him,  or  he  forgot  to  record,  that 
in  the  same  angry  tone  and  manner,  Mr;  Harris  proceeded 
— «  for  you  of  all  men  living  are  the  most  irritable."  And 
^et  this  most  irritable  of  all  men,  replied  witii  a  smile, 
«  Well,  well,  allowing  that,  brother  Harris,  how  does  it 
excuse  the  spirit  which  Alr^  Jones  manifests  ?" 


*  Appeal,  p.  58. 


t  Appeal,  p.  65. 


)\ 


! 


!  ! 


i     120    .) 

.  'With  a  yievr  to  ascertain  what  was  Mr.  Harris's  reeoUee- 
tion  of  this  matter,  I  made  a  written  inquiry  of  him^  which, 
with  his  answer,  is  as  follows. 

^uest,  ^'  In  a  conversation  between  myself  and  you  on 
Mr.  Jones's  treatment  of  Mr.  Lyell  at  a  convocation  of 
the  Clei^  at  the  Bishop's,  when  you  observed  to  me, 
<  You,  Dr.  Hobart,  of  all  men,  ought  to  be  the  last  to 
make  such  a  remark,'  did  you  not  subjoin,  *  for  you  of 
all  men  living  are  the  most  irritable  ?'  And  did  I  discover 
any  irritation  at  this  remark ;  but  did  I  not  in  a  pleasant 
way  rejoin, — ^  Well,  allowing  this,  how  does  it  excuse  Mr. 
Jones?'  or  words  to  this  effect?" 

Jins*  "  In  the  treatment  which  Mr.  Jones  received 
fi*om  Mr.  Lyell,  I  have  no  recollection  that  I  said,  *  you 
of  all  men  living  are  the  most  irritable.'  1  however  think 
it  probable  that  I  might  have  said  it,  and  I  perfectly  well 
remember  that  your  answer  to  whatever  I  had  said,  was, 
as  you  say,  '  in  a  pleasant  way." 

I  have  a  distinct  recollection  that  Mr.  Harris  made  the 
remark  which  he  acknowledges  "  it  is  probable"  he  did 
maker  and  which,  as  well  as  my  answer  in  <^  a  pleasant 
ws^,"  he  perfectly  well  remembered  in  the  conversation 
with  him  a  few  days  preceding  his  giving  me  the  above 
testimony. 

This  unimportant  occurrence,  in  which  I  displayed  dis- 
positions the  very  reverse  of  those  which  Mr,  Jones  attri- 
butes to  me,  affbi*ds  him  an  opportunity  of  making  the  fol- 
lowing remarks;  which  I  present  to  you  without«comment, 
only  protesting  against  both  the  charges  and  the  acknow- 
ledgments which  he  there  imputes  to  me. 

<<  For  my  own  part,  nothing  I  confess,  among  all  the 
multiplied  insults  and  provocations  which  1  have  received 
from  him,  has  led  me  to  form  so  mean  an  opinion  of  Dr. 
Hobart,  as  this  single  remark.  Because,  he  knows,  and 
he  has  several  times  candidly  confessed,  that  in  this  re- 
spect, 1  have  always  had  the  advantage  of  him.  And  I 
am  bold  to  put  it  to  his  conscience  to  declare,  that  amid 
all  the  irritating  circumstances  in  which  I  have  been 
placed  by  him,  I  have  never  resented  his  almost  unbear« 
able  conduct ;  and  have  never  I'eturned  him  one  irritating 
word.  This  is  said  with  humility.  Possessing,  by  nature, 
as  I  am  well  aware,  a  disposition  quick  and  irritable,  yf^t 
chastened  1  trust,  aad  in  soiuc  measure  subdued  by  a  ha- 


^*4 


»  ; 


"  6it  6f  eonsfanf  watchfulness,  and  by  the  pwvehtion  of 
'  the  grace  of  Go<l ;  I  have  often  been  astonished,  when 
reflecting  on  this  subject,  that  under  the  peculiar  trying 
circumstances  in  whieh  I  have  been  placed,  I  have  not 
been  surprised  into  some  unadvised  act.  I  thauk  God 
for  his  preserving  care."*'  .  • 

The  charge  of  pursuing  a  system  offavountism  and  pre- 
scription, 

ik  very  frequently,  and  in  the  strongest  terms  ui*ged  against 
ftie  by  Mr.  Jones  and  Mr.  Feltus  in  their  "  Appeal"  and 
*<  Statenicnt."  The  former  in  particular  accuses  me  of 
« endeavouring  to  get  my  particular  subservient  Clerical 
friends,  one  after  another,  into  the  Church  in  this  city;" 
attd  of  having  "  used  my  utmost  exertions,  to  keep  out 
every  one,  who  might  se«m  to  be  likely  to  stand  in  the  way 
of  my  plans."! 

As  to  the  charge  of  2wo«cri|rtio»-^of  endeavouring  to  keep 
out  **  of  the  most  respectable  situations  in  city  or  country," 
«  eVery  one  who  might  seem  to  be  likely  to  stand  in  the 
Way  of  my  plarts." 

i  did  not  oppose  Mr.  Feltiis's  call  to  Brooklyn.  The 
J>aper  styled  by  Mm  "  a  sheet  of  false  accusations,"  was 
presented  to  the  Bishop  after  this  call.  And  when  the  Bi- 
shop did  not  see  proper  to  proceed  in  the  business,  I  made 
tto  objection  to  the  settlement  of  Mr.  Feltus.  Nor  did  I 
feter  endeavour  to  lessen  him  in  the  estimation  of  hh  com- 
gPCgatien. 

'  I  did  not  oppose,  directly  or  indirectly,  the  call  or  settle- 
ment of  Dr.  Moore  at  St.  Stephen's,  which  was  zealously 
promoted  by  Mr.  Jones.  Nor  can  any  of  his  congregation  say 
Ibat  they  ever  heard  from  me  any  thing  to  his  disadvantage. 

In  the  case  of  a  vacancy  at  Grace  Church,  when  Mr. 
Jones  insinuates  I  opposed  the  call  of  Mr.  Dehon,  I  re- 
commended this  gentleman  for  that  situation ;  and  this  I 
ifftust  beg  leave  to  confirm  by  the  following  statement  of  D. 
S.  Ogden,  Esq.  one  of  the  members  of  the  Vestry. 

^  In  a  conversation  which  I  had  with  the  Rev.  Dr.  Ho- 

hart,  previous  to  the  choice  of  a  Rector  for  Grace  Church, 

he  recommended  the  Rev.  Mr.  Dehon  as  a  person  well 

ealculated  for  that  station,  and  spoke  to  me  in  high  terms 

*  «tf  Mr.  Dehon  as  a  man  of  talents  and  character.     I  mcn- 


**-Api>*aT/  p-  67. 


16 


f  Appeal,  p.  20,* 


••7 


c 


(     122     ) 

tiuiicd  at  that  tiuie  the  name  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Bowen,  the 
pirsent  Reetor  of  Grace  Church  ;  when  Dr.  Hobart  ex- 
lu-essed  doubts  whether  Mr.  Bowen  would  accept  of  the 
Rectorship  if  it  were  offered  to  him,  as  he  had  declined  a 
1  ffiven  to  him  by  Trinity  Church. 

«  DAVID  B.  OGDEN. 

JVeic-FoT-fe,  July  18,  1811." 

I  did  not  oppose,  directly  or  indirectly,  the  settlement  of 
the  Rev.  David  Moore  at  State n- Island. 

And  yet  in  all  these,  or  in  any  other  cases,  I  should  not 
have  hesitated  to  make  opposition,  had  duty  to  the  Church 
in  my  judgment  required  it. 

As  to  the  charge  of  favouritism. 

,Mr.  Lyeirs  settlement  in  Christ  Church  was  certainly  ef- 
fected without  any  favour,  direct  or  indirect,  of  mine.  On 
t!ie  contraiy,  at  that  time  I  rather  favoured  the  settlement  of 
Dr.  Mooi-e  in  that  situation. 

I  did  favour  the  settlement  of  Mr.  How  in  the  city ;  but  so 
well  established  were  his  character  and  talents,  that  no  parti- 
cular favour  of  mine  was  necessary  to  effect  his  settlement. 
And  until  I  made  a  mortifying  discovery  to  the  contrary, 
very  soon  after  Mr.  How's  ordination,  I  did  suppose  that  Mr. 
Jones  accorded  in  the  general  gratification  manifested  at  Mr. 
How's  coming  into  the  Church. 

I  did  favour  the  settlement  of  Mr.  Bowen  in  Grace  Church, 
so  far  as  to  bear  honoui^able  testimony  to  his  talents  and 
character.  The  first  proposition  of  calling  him  was  rather 
discouraged  by  me,  on  the  supposition  that  he  would  not  ac- 
cept the  situation.  And  I  wrote  to  him  afterwardsiat  the  ex- 
press request  of  the  Wai*dens  of  that  Church. 

The  above  closes  the  short  catalogue  of  my  offences,  as 
to  the  charge  of  favouritism. 

How  far  I  *^  pursued  a  system  of  favouritism  particu- 
larly in  respect  to  a  certain  Clergyman  whom  I  was  endea- 
vouring to  get  into  Trinity  Church,"  the  charge  which  Mr. 
Jones  made  against  me  to  Mr.  Bulkley,*  will  appear  from 
the  following  statement  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Chapman,  the 
Clergyman  alluded  to,  and  who  is  Rector  of  the  Church 
in  Amboy. 

<<  In  page  26  of  his  <<  Appeal,"  Mr.  Jones  asserts  that 
Dr.HQbart  "had  been  endeavouring  to  get  his  particular 

•  j\lr.Bulkley'a  statement,  p.  38  of  this  address; 


(      *23      ) 

subservient  Clerical  friends  one  after  another,  into  the 
Church  in  this  City."  From  the  circumstance  of  my 
intimacy  with  Dr.  Hobart,  botli  before  and  after  ray  re- 
sidence in  New-York,  there  is  reason  to  presume  that 
Mr.  Jones  refers  to  myself  in  particular,  when  he  makes 
the  above  assertion.  In  answer  to  which,  I  do  hereby 
testify,  that  before  I  was  in  Holy  Orders,  Dr.  Hobart 
'  wished,  advised,  and  urged  me  to  settle  in  New-.Tersey. 
where  the  interests  of  the  Church  were  deca^^in^  for 
want  of  Clergymen.  For  some  n^onths  after  I  had  re- 
ceived Orders,  being  without  any  particular  charge,  I  of- 
ficiated in  the  City  of  New-York  several  times,  without 
entertaining  an  expectation  of  a  settlement  there,  but 
from  a  desire  to  serve  my  friends.  I  was  called  however 
to  officiate  in  Trinity  Church  for  a  limited  time.  I  have 
no  reason  to  believe  that  such  an  arrangement  was  made 
through  the  particular  influence  of  Dr.  Hobart.  That 
the  testimony  which  he  judged  it  proper  to  give  in  my  fa- 
vour might  have  had  weight,  cannot  be  doubted.  But 
when  he  was  asked  to  give  his  opinion  respecting  myself, 
or  any  other  person,  it  is  presumed,  that  justice  as  well 
as  the  obligations  of  friendship,  demanded  that  he  should 
give  it  candidly.  In  addition  to  the  above,  I  do  well  re 
collect,  that  during  my  residence  in  New- York,  Dr.  Ho- 
bart more  than  once  recommended  to  me  a  settlement  in  a 
country  parish,  and  declarcil  his  opinion  in  favour  of  a 
-residence  in  the  country. 

«  J.  CHAPMAN." 

In  connection  with  this  subject  I  must  beg  leave  also  ^d 
'exhibit  the  following  statement;  because  I  well  recollect 
that  in  the  advice  which  I  gave  to  Mr.  Rudd,  I  incurred  the 
good  natured  displeasure  of  my  Diocesan,  who,  at  that  time, 
was  desirous  that  Mr.  Rudd  should  settle  in  this  Diocese. 

"  From  the  whole  tenor  of  Dr.  Hobart's  conduct  to- 
wards me,  and  from  all  the  observations  I  have  had  op- 
portunity to  make,  I  never  could  have  supposed  that  he 
was  2}lanning  to  get  such  Clergy  into  the  City  and  State  of 
JVfuj-Forfe,  as  might  he  suhservient  to  his  views.  , 

"  As  it  respects  myself,  I  can  expressly  declare,  that  on 
entering  the  ministry  Dr.  Hobart  discouraged  my  settle- 
ment in  the  Diocese  of  New- York,  stating  as  his  reason  for 
so  doing,  that  other  places  stood  in  more  immediate  need  of 
Clergy.  The  depressed  state  of  the  Church  in  New- Jersey, 
and  particularly  the  situation  of  the  Parish  jn  which  I  re- 


;-.h 


/ 


t         . 


(     i^      ) 

**fisirfe,  he  thouglit,  i^hould  induce  me  to  accept  a  call  to  Eliza- 
beth-Town. The  prospect  of  my  usefulness  was,  he  said, 
much  more  extensive  here,  than  in  the  State  of  New- 
York.  Since  my  settlement  in  New-Jersey,  when  situa- 
tions have  heeu  offered  to  uie  in  the  Dioecss  of  New- York, 
Dr.  Ifobart  has  held  the  same  langusge,  and  invariably 
dissuaded  me  from  removing.  Nor  can  I  for  a  moment 
suppose  that  his  advice  on  this  subject,  was  not  the  resul£ 
of  the  sincercst  friendship.  His  uniforYn  deportment  has 
been  such  as  to  \e«^  no  lioubt  of  this  on  my  mind :  and  I 

->  think  1  may  add,  with  perfect  safety,  that  had  he  been  so- 

'  licit ous  to  get  Clergymen  settled  in  the  State  of  New- 
York,  who  were  disposed  to  pay  the  utmost  deference  to 
his  judgment,  and  to  be  influenced  by  his  opinions,  I  might 
have  been  i-egarded  as  one  of  the  number. 

«  JOHN  C.  RUDD,  Rector  of 

i:  i*  St.  John's  Church,  EUzabeth-Town. 

-  ^ii  mi^uMJi'TGicn,  Jwh/ll,  1811." 

Several  persons  whose  names  delicacy  prevents  my  men- 
tioning I  urgently  advised  to  relinquish  their  intentions  for 
orders,  though  they  were  particularly  intimate  with  me,  and 
disposed  to  place  themselves  under  my  direction,  in  the  pro- 
aceution  of  their  studies.  In  regard  to  two  gentlemen 
-whom  Mr.  Feltus  introduces  into  his  note  which  appears  in 
the  "  Appeal."*  I  must  observe,  that  Mr.  Jones  joined  in  the 
recommendation  of  them.  In  the  case  of  one  of  them  I  zea- 
lously opposed  the  application  of  the  dispensing  power; 
and  through  my  advice  he  was  induced  not  to  endeavour 
to  avail  himself  of  it  Such  has  been  my  system  of  favour- 
itism. 

In  all  my  conduct  relative  to  the  settlement  of  Clergy- 
Bien  in  this  Diocese,  I  counselled  with  the  Bishop  and  my  bre-i 
thi*en.  My  colleague,  on  the  contrary,  was  pursuing  the  very 
system  of  favouritism  and  proscription   which  he  unjustly 
ascribes  to  me ;   as  soon  as  a  vacancy  occurred  in  the  City 
or  elsewhere,  writing  letters  to  Clergy  men,  to  come  on  and 
ofifer  themselves  as  candidates  for  it ;  zealous  and  indefatiga- 
ble in  his  efforts  in  favour  of  some  Clergymen  and  ia  oppo- 
sition to  others,  as  it  suited  his  views ;  and  all  this  without 
consulting  with  his  Bishop  or  with  his  brethren  in  general. 
But  this  whole  series  of  violent,  persecuting  and  unprin- 
eipled  conduct  which  Mr.  Jones  attributes  to  me,  was  all  to 
*<  pave  the  way  for  my  elevation."!  All  who  came  in  the  way 


ji 


(    18i^     ) 

of  iiiy  unprincipled  ambition  were  to  «  feel  the  rod  and  to  be 
made  to  bow,*'* 

These  are  the  charges  of  the  "  AppeaP'*^ 

Unprinc^d  amhUian^  eridmced^^tf  a  lafig  series  of  vi- 
otmt,  trudf  and  persecuting  eonduet  an'  my  part,  and 
partkularly  by  shamefully  intriguing  for  the  offlce  of 
Bishop^  •*'       ^ 

Gentlemen,  I  profess  to  be  ambitious,  ardentlv  ambitions 
topronmte  the  good  of  any  cause  for  which  I  am'  interested. 
To  the  Church  I  have  devoted  my  time,  my  health,  my  ^irits, 
my  puFse  (small  as  it  is),  and  blessings  than  which  none 
of  these  are  more  precious,  the  enjoyments  of  domestic  life. 
In  the  preparing  and  superintending  the  publication  of  jour- 
nals, and  sermons,  and  prayer  books,  and  tracts,  and  in 
other  mechanical  drudgfry  of  the  Chftreh,  I  have  consum- 
ed so  much  of  my  time  and  so  muA  of  mental  exertion, 
that  those  studies  which  ai'e  equally  my  duty  and  my  delight 
I  have  had  neither  the  leisure  nor  the  strength  to  pursue.  In 
the  general  concerns  of  the  Church,  I  have  had  a  full  share 
of  mental  as  well  as  active  participation.  And  he  who  ha§ 
heretofore  been  my  Diocesan  will  testify  that  on  no  occasion 
was  I  backward  in  extending  any  solicitude  or  any  exertions 
in  respect  to  those  concerns,  where  he  honoun^d  me  with  bis 
confidence.  This  has  been  my  ambition,  Und  this  has  been 
the  way  in  which  I  have  displayed  it.  My  accusers.  Gentle- 
men, fbree  me  to  boast. 

Yes,  I  confess,  that  when  placed  in  active  stations,  I  do 
feel  ambitious  to  discharge  my  duty ;  to  prosecute  plans  for 
the  advancement  of  the  object  to  whict  I  am  devoted.  Biit 
strong  as  is  this  laudable  ambition,  it  is  often  lost  in  the  pa- 
ramount fondness  for  privacy  and  repose. 

But  my  accuser  attributes  to  me  ambition  of  a  very  differ- 
ent kind ;  that  base  an^sordid  ambiUon  which  terminates  in 
self,  "  the  attainment  of  power  and  influenee,  self-exalta- 
tion;" the  ambition  of  an  «  aspiring  young  man."f  Mine  is 
that  ambition,  unprincipled  as  it  is  cruel,  which  «  can  mis- 
apply money  to  suit  its  own  views  ;''^  which  exacts  "  servile 
submission,*'^  which  rules  in  «  tyranny  and  in  tolerance,**  j} 
which  makes  all  who  come  in  its  way  «  bow  under  the 
rod/*^  and  which,  in  its  career  to  power,*  can  watch  its  rivals  » 


^Af  pe«K  p.  64. 


^  A^jpea},  p.,  85: 


*  Appeal,  p.  78. 
?  Appeal,  p  ,V 


t  llii<].  p.  83. 
!.'  I  Hid  j>.  S. 


i  Ibid.  p.  21. 
^  lliid.  p.  78. 


I 


^.^ 


V 
v 
i 


(     *26      ) 

<<  with  eagle-eyed  anxious  scrutiny,  and  even  \nth  malevo- 
lence,"* and  pursue  them  with  an  unbending  and  "  cruel" 
persecution.!  Thus  base,  according  to  my  accuser,  in  its 
object  and  its  means,  is  the  ambition  which  sways  me. 

To  make  professions  on  this  subject  would  be  utterly  vain. 
To  argue  with^hose  who  believe  me  capable  of  this  unprin- 
cipled ambition,  would  be  an  ineffectual  task ;  and  to  lay 
open  my  private  history  and  feelings  with  the  view  of  satis- 
fying the  candid  and  unprejudiced,  how  different  have  been 
my  views  and  dispositions  from  those  which  are  imputed  to 
me,  might  be  deemed  indelicate  and  ostentatious.  The  af- 
fection and  confidence  of  those  who  know  me,  I  trust  will  be 
my  best  answer  to  a  charge  which  would  render  me  utterly 
unworthy  of  both. 

At  the  very  time  when  my  accuser  asserts  I  was  shame- 
fully  intriguing  for  the  office  of  Bishop,  I  was  indulging  the 
hope  of  soon  realizing  a  plan  of  lit?  that  would  have  placed 
me  beyond  the  operation  of  those  passions   which  have 
prompted  these  base  accusations.     I  am  reluctant  to  swell 
this  address  with  more  statements ;  or  I  could    show,    by 
the  testimony  of  many  of  my  confidential  friends,  that  for 
years  I  have  not  only  been  entertaining  wishes  for  retire- 
ment, but  have  been  maturing  plans  for  carrying  them  into 
effect.     Not  that  I  possessed  a  pecuniary  independenee—ifor 
my  accuser  has  sometimes  triumphantly  asked  this  question, 
as  if  to  infer  that  this  plan  of  retirement  was  only  a  pre- 
tence.    No — my  famBy  would  still  have  been  dependent  on 
the  exercise  of  the  talents  which  nature  has  given  me  for 
their  support.     But  I  did  believe,  that  the  exercise  of  those 
talents  in  retirement,  according  to  the  plan  which  I  had 
formed,  would  secure  to  my  family  a  competency,  and  would 
not  be  unproductive  of  good  to  the  Church.     And  at  least 
one  object,  for  which  I  thought  no  sacrifice  too  great,  would 
be  secured — [  should  be  saved  from  the  humiliation  of  a 
contest  with  Mr.  Jones;  and  the  Church  from  the  evils  eon- 
sequent  upon  it.     This  was  my  plan  and  object  at  the  time 
when  it  was  represented  to  me,  that  duty  to  the  Church  im- 
periously required  that  I  should  consent  to  be  placed  in  a 
more  responsible  station.     My  deepest  regrets  have  since 
flowed,  that  this  plan  was  relinquished,  and  this  object  not 
in  this  way  seeuivd. 

Never  were  there  suspicions  more  false,  misrepresenta- 
tions more  gross,  or  charges  more  unfounded,  than  tliose  in 
the  "  Appeal,"  relative  to 


(     127     ) 

The  ^^  measure  of  calling  a  Special  Convention,  and  mak- 
ing choice  of  a  Bishop.''^ 

During  the  greater  portion  of  the  time  that  these  mea- 
sures were  in  agitation,  I  was  absent  in  the  country ;  and  I 
can  solemnly  declare,  that  so  wholly  was  I  engrossed  with 
enjoyments  the  most  congenial  with  my  feelings,  that  the 
care  s  of  ambition  never  invaded  me ;  nor  did  the  inquiries 
who  was  to  be  Rector  or  who  was  to  be  Bishop,  scaixiely 
enter  into  my  thoughts.     If  others  took  measures  in  my 
absence,  they  acted  on  their  own  responsibility.     But  there 
were  no  measures  but  what  were  perfectly  honourable.   The 
call  of  the  Convention  and  the  immediate  choice  of  a  Bi- 
shop  were   demanded  by  the  peculiar  exigencies   of  the 
Church;  and  its  Heads  are  still  of  opinion  that  further  mea- 
sures are  yet  necessary  for  continuing  the  Episcopacy ;  and 
are  urgent  in  their  wishes  on  this  subject.*     In  this  busi- 
ness there  was  no  intrigue.     If  letters  were  written  to  Cler- 
g;^nien,  they  were  written  by  those  who  were  in  habits  of 
eon-espondence ;  and  it  was  not  to  be  expected  that  in  such 
a  critical  state  of  the  Church  they  would  be  silent  on  its 
concerns.    By  me  none  were  written ;  no  influence  direct 
or  indirect  was  by  me  exerted.    But  were  no  letters  written 
by  my  accuser  ?     Did  he  and  his  friends  exert  no  influence 
direct  or  indirect  against  me?     Were  no  journies  under- 
taken, and  some  of  them  not  very  short  ones,  to  Laymen 
as  well  as  Clergymen,  with  the  \iew  of  pre-occupying  their 
minds?     And  for  this  end,  were  not  the  most  injurious  re- 
presentations made  of  my  conduct,  principles,  and  views  ? 
This  will  not  be  denied.     My  accusers  may  have  thought  it 
their  duty  thus  to  exeii;  themselves  against  one  whom  they 
«  in  their  hearts  believed  was  utterly  unfit  for  the  office."f 
But  let  them  then  be  silent  as  to  the  active  support  which 
the  object  of  their  opposition  received  from  thos:e  who  «*  in 
their  hearts  believed  him"  fit  «  for  this  high  and  moment- 
ous trust.*' 

The  representations  contained  in  tlie  «^  JlppeaV^  of  my  he- 
haviour  to  Dr.  Bea^sh, 

I  am  compelled  most  explicitly  and  solemnly  to  declare, 
are  false.  Self-defence  only,  under  assaults  the  most  wan- 
ton, unjust,  and  cruel,  could  have  forced  from  mc  this  de- 
claration.   Towards  Dr.  Beach  ipy  conduct,  I  most  solemnly 


*  Appeal,  p.  7Z. 


t  Hid.  p.  r-5 


See  Pastoral  Letter  of  the  Bishops. 


t  Appeal,  p.  3. 


Vj^'T 


(     138     ) 

aver,  was  every  thmg  thnt  josticc^  that  hoiicmr,  that  i^4^d- 
ship,  that  tenderness  could  demand.  I  soon  «KplieitijF  de- 
elared  to  him  ))ersonally,  and  through  the  medium  of  others, 
that  I  considered  the  Rectory  his  due;  that  I  deemed  the 
pretensions  of  any  others  as  perfectly  chimeriealj  and  was 
satisfied  that  on  this  po^nt  there  eould  be  bat  one  sentiment 
in  the  Vestry.  I  nerer  eonsented  to  think  of  the  other  office, 
tintil  I  understood  from  his  own  explicit  declarations  to 
others,  that  he  utterly  disclaimed  it  (doubtless  under  the 
idea  of  receiving  the  Rectory) ;  and  that  he  was  even  dis^ 
posed  to  take  <he  lead  in  holdirfg  me  up  for  that  station.^ 
Even  when  a  change  took  place  in  his  views,  I  declared  to 
him  most  explicitly,  that  whatever  (^ce  he  might  seek,  ht 
^ould  not  jind  me  an  opponent.  The  feelings  ef  delicacy 
forbade  a  detailed  conversation  on  such  a  subject.  And 
prudence  required  tlmt  we  should  not  expose  oui'selves  to 
the  misconstructions  of  malevolence— ready  to  proclaim  that 
Ve  were  dividing  the  offices  of  the  Church  between  ns.  I 
waved,  therefore,  a  conversation  on  thescr  points,  in  latt- 

fuage,  tone,  and  maimer  the  most  respectful  and  soothing : 
egging  foi^iveness,  on  the  ground  of  the  honesty  of  my  in- 
tentions, if  in  ought  my  conduct  appeared  unkind ;  and  iti 
irctam  for  a  declaration  which  every  feeling  of  my  heart 
sanctioned,  that  I  placed  the  utmost  confidence  in  his  affee^ 
tionate  intentions  towards  me,  I  received  from  Dr.  Beaeh 
his  paternal  blessing.  Even  when  I  found  that  a  statement, 
to  which  common  justice  gave  me  a  claim,  and  which  had 
been  solemnly  promised,  was  withheld  from  a  friend,  nndei* 
the  evident  apprehension  of  displeasing  the  accusers  e£ 
that  friend,  w4io  were  destined  to  take  his  place  in  the  be- 
som of  affection,  my  reasonings  and  remonstrances,  I  most 
solemnly  aver,  were  more  resjiectful  and  tender  than  jus- 
tice, and  truth,  and  honour  demanded. 

tJnsnsi)ecting  that  the  injured  could,  by  some  myste- 
rious transformation,  be  considered  as  the  injurious  aggres- 
sor, I  left  the  city  immediately  after  this  interview.  And 
on  my  return,  I  found  that  all  my  brethren,  that  many  mem- 
bers of  the  Vestry  were  informed,  that  I  had  grossly  in- 
sulted my  venei*able  colleague  ;  that  tl>e  tale  had  been  com- 
mitted to  my  implacable  opponent,  and  that  he  was  spread- 
ing it  from  house  to  house,  txcntlemen,  if  yon  know  what 
It  is  to  sutler  under  injurious  imputations,  and  had  witnessed 

*  That  Mr.  Jones's  sentiments  n  to  the  fitness  of  Dr.  B.  for  this  office,  if  sin-. 
cere,  M'cre  most  wonderfully  changed,  I  couUf  prove  hy  a  document  in  ray  pos- 
session, which  I  have  sbowQ  to  some  iudividaaU,  but  which  delicacy  prevents  my 
exhibiting  to  the  world. 


(     129     ) 

then  irty  language  and  my  conduct,  the  assertion  that  my 
passions  are  ungovernable  would  gain  no  credit  with  you^-* 
I  sought  an  interview— I  earnestly  wished,  Und  confidently 
expected  to  be  able  to  remove  tliis  most  unaccountable  mis- 
apprehension. At  two  interviews,  where  this  was  my  ob- 
ject, my  conduct,  I  aver,  without  fear  of  denial  from  those 
who  witnessed  it,  was  respectful,  conciliating,  and  forbear- 
ing, under  circumstances,  to  say  the  least,  highly  un propi- 
tious to  the  exercise  of  these  virtues.  The  certificate  which 
I  wished  to  obtain,  in  order  to  arrest  the  progress  of  these 
injurious  reports,  and  which,  in  the  «  Appeal,"  it  is  said,  I 
«  moulded  into  different  forms,"  was,  in  one  of  those  forms, 
proposed  by  a  near  connection  of  Dr.  Beach,  who  can  least 
of  all  be  suspected  of  an  intention  to  lure  him  into  any  un- 
(Jue  compliance ;  and  was  promptly  accepted  by  me.  And 
when,  at  length,  all  overtures  and  all  explanations  proved 
fruitless,  1  consented  to  let  the  tale  of  what  I  conceived  my 
injuries  remain  untold.  And  to  this,  I  solemnly  declare,  I 
was  prompted  solely  by  respect  for  the  feelings  and  peace  of 
my  venerable  colleague. 

Gentlemen,  all  this  I  could  corroborate  by  minute  details^ 
and,  in  some  cases,  by  strong  testimonies.  But  so  inex- 
pressibly painful  is  this  subject,  that. I  am  almost  tempted 
to  blot  out  the  short  statement  which  self-defence  has  ex- 
torted from  me.  I  wish  not  to  invade  the  sanctuary  of  old 
age,  and  disturb  its  repose.    The  voice  that  once  hailed  me 

as  a  friend  has  not  yet  ceased  to  vibi'ate  on  my  heart ^Many 

tender  recollections  rush  there— And  I  feel  I  must  forbear. 
Unfortunate  was  the  hour  when  the  friend  was  excluded^ 
and  the  alien  admitted  to  his  privileges ;  when  the  bosom 
where  every  counsel  was  once  welcomed,  and  every  care  and 
every  grief  found  a  consolation,  was  rudely  discarded,  antf 
the  marble  heart  i*eposed  on  for  sympathy  and  comfort. 

My  colleague,  in  his  «  Appeal,"  in  order  to  establish  hiii 
charge  of  shameful  intrigue  on  this  subject  of  choosing  a 
Bishop,  has  ventured  another  charge,  for  which  I  will  boldly 
say,  he  has  no  other  authority,  but  his  own  jealous  fancy. 

He  asserts,* 

That  the  pl^n  of  an  Assistant  Bishop  was  devised  for  a 
neighbouring  Diocese  in  order  to  remove  anotlwr  obstacle 
to  my  ambitious  projects. 

■I 

*  Appei.1,  p.  .83 

17 


I 


M 


(     «0     ) 

'llie  first  intimation  which  I  had^  of  the  contempfaterf 
"choice  of  an  Assistant  bishop  in  Connecticut  was  from  th» 
very  respectable  individual  to  whom  the  application  was 
made.  It  is  not  for  a  moment  to  be  supposed  that  this  gen- 
tleman, confessedly  of  high  character  «nV*K"t^' *"™ 
inanv  Tears  ago  declined  the  office  of  Bishop  m  that  State, 
offered  to  him  under  the  most  honourable  circumstances, 
would  consent  to  be  the  dupe  of  artifices  and  designs  so  base 
as  those  which  Mr.  Jones  has  surmised.  The  apphcation 
was  informally  and  confidentially  made  to  him,  whether  he 
would  consent  to  accept  that  office;  and  the  peculiar  state 
of  the  Church  induced  him  to  return  a  favourable  answer, 
-tmder  the  express  condition,  that  the  measure  should  re- 
ceive the  cordial  approbation  «f  «?«  B^l'^P*  ^''ll**  *T» 
tion  generally  of  the  Clergy  and  Laity  of  the  State.  AU 
this  win  appear  from  the  following  statements. 

«  A  pamphlet,  entitled  A  solemn  Appeal,  &c.  by  the 
Bev.  Cave  Jones,  having  lately  fallen  into  our  hands,  we 
deem  it  our  duty  to  state,  that  where  the  author  adverts 
to  certain  transactions  in  th«  Diocese  of  Connecticut,  he 
is  altogether  incorrect  in  his  statements,  which  are  cal- 
culated to  produce  a  false  impression  on  the  mind  ot  the 
reader.  In  our  application  to  Dr.  Bowden  relative  to  the 
Episcopate,  we  were  actuated  altogether  by  our  own  mo- 
tives We  received  no  previous  communication,  or  even 
80  much  as  a  hint  from  any  one  in  New-York,  or  else- 
-  where ;  nor  was  the  project  communicated  to  more  than 
one  or  two  Clergjmen  in  this  State.  And  as  to  any  un- 
easiness or  jealousy  the  measure  may  have  occasioned 
in  Connecticut,  we  know  of  none,  nor  d»  we  beheve  any 
is  likely  to  exist.  „,j,^otSON  BRONSON, 

«  Principal  of  the  Episcopal  Academy. 
"REUBEN  IVES, 
«  Rector  of  St.  Peter's  Church. 

••  Cheshire,  July  4,  1811.'* 

.«  In  addition  to  the  above  certificate,  I  do  declare,  that 
there  is  aot  so  much  as  a  shadow  to  justify  Mr.  Jones  a 
representation  of  the  transaction  alluded  tp.  It  is  alto- 
eetfier  the  work  of  his  own  fancy,  which,  as  appears  trom 
his  publication,  has  been  very  active  for  *f ^eral  je?rs,  w 
sugpKting  in  others  sinister  designs,  and  attributing  *• 
them  unworthy  motives.  The  characters  on  ^h«m  h« 
has  endeavoured  to  fix  Aw  odium  of  acting  ineottsistenUy 


t 


(    181    ) 

irith  IBpiseopal  principles,  of  having  disturbed  the  peacie 
of  the  Church  in  Connecticut,  and  of  having  duped  nae 
into  an  improper  measure,  are  too  well  known  for  their 
good  sense  and  integrity  to  have  contrived  so  foolish  and 
base  a  plan.  The  tale  is  devoid  of  all  probability,  and 
utterly  at  variance  with  every  circumstance  of  the  trans- 
action. 

*^  JOHN  BOWDEN. 

«  MW'Farkf  August  6,  1811.'^ 

An^  yet,  Gentlemen,  Mr.  Jones  did  not  hesitate  to  assert, 
^hs^  this  measure  was  concerted  and  conducted,  at  least 
y/nih  the  knowledge  and  connivance  of  myself  or  my  friendil- 
ii  this  city,  for  the  purpose  of  removing  an  obstacle  from 
the  path  of  my  ambition.  He  even  indulges  in  a  highly 
wrought  representation  €>f  the  want  of  principle  which  this 
measure  displays  ^  and  of  the  evils  attendant  on  it.  "  Uncom- 
missioned individuals"  originate  this  scheme — ^the  authority 
af  «  the  venerable  Bishop  of  the  Church"  is  invaded — ^and' 
this  by  men  too  "  who  profess  a  very  superior  veneration 
for  the  Episcopal  character."  **  Jealousies,  distrust,  divi* 
fiions  are  excited."  And  all  this  with  the  participation,  or 
connivance,  or  even  prime  agency  of  myself  or  friends. 
For  charges  so  serious  Mr.  Jones  possessed  no  proofs  what- 
ever. His  only  authority  was  his  own  conjectures.  And  yet, 
at  the  very  page  where  this  scheme  is  unfolded,  he  calls  his 
readers  to  remember,  that  <*  he  is  not  dealing  in  -conjec- 
tures, proofs  are  ready  to  be  adduced,  and  proofs  whicii 
will  produce  conviction."* 

Another  prominent  charge  is^ 

That  I  have  uniformly  refused  reamciliatioih  ond  eoery 
^oposition  tending  thereto. 

On  this  ground  Mr.  Jones,  in  the  ^^  Appeal,"  and  himself 
and  his  friends  since,  attempt  to  rest  the  justification  of  that 
publication ;  and  to  consider  it  as  <^  strictly  a  measure  of 
self-defence."!  Now,  as  I  never  accused  my  colleague  be- 
fore the  Church  or  the  public,  I  am  somewhat  at  a  loss  to 
see  in  what  <<  light"  his  Appeal  is  to  be  considered  as  <^  a 
measure  of  self-defence."  But  what  information  does  this 
work  throw  on  the  charge  that  I  have  uniformly  refused  re- 
conciliation ?  Of  the  <^  reasonable  pi*opasition"  of  Mr.  Jones, 


*  Appeal,  p.  ^4. 


t  Advertisement  to  the  "  Appeal." 


I 


(     132     ) 

recoi'ded  in  the  26  page  of  his  Appeal ;  of  my  "  i-ash  decla- 
ration'* eoncernin^  it ;  of  the  <*  repentance'*  which  I  after^ 
vards  discovered ;  and  of  the  "  plan"  which  I  suggested  to 
the  Bishop,  I  really  have  no  distinct  recollection. 

But,  take  it  at  the  worst,  as  represented  by  Mr.  Jones.  I 
did,  it  appears,  "  repent ;"  I  did  suggest  to  the  Bishop  the 
*'  plan"  proposed  by  him.   Here  then  was  no  barrier  on  my 
part  to  reconciliation.     But  my  declaration  (admitting  that 
I  made  it,  which  I  really  doubt)  is  not  quite  so  "  rash"  as 
Mr.  Jones  would  I'epresent  it.     The   canons   know  of  no 
such  tribunal  for  trying  Clergymen  as  that  represented  by 
hi.n.     This  gentleman  insinuates  that  I  have  higher  ideas 
•f  Episcopal  authority  than  himself.  =^     And  yet  I  hesitate 
Bot  to  aver  that  should  a  Bishop  in  this  Diocese,  convene  his 
Clergy  for  the  purpose  of  investigating  the  conduct  of  a 
Clergyman,  he  acts  by  an  authority  unknown  to  the  Consti- 
tution and  Canons ;  and  the  attendance  of  this  Clergyman 
on  such  a  meeting,  would  be  entirely  a  matter  of  courtesy. 
The  Canons  of  the  Church  in  this  State  prescribe  a  differ- 
ent mode  for  investigating  the  conduct  of  Clergymen—a  re* 
gular  presentment  must  be  made— <?ertain  Clergymen  must 
be  nominated  by  the  Bis1iO|N— and  from  those  the  accused  h 
to  choose  a  certain  nuniber  as  his  judges.    And  great  as  was 
my  veneration  for  my  Bishop,  and  still  more  for  his  autho- 
rity, I  should  have  thought  that  justice  to  my  own  charactei* 
would  have  sanctioned  my  reluctance  to  depart  from  the 
mode  of  investigating  my  conduct  prescribed  by  the  Canons  i 
to  wave  a  privilege  which  they  conferred   upon  me ;  and  to 
submit  my  character  and  conduct  to  an  infornml  meeting  of 
the  Clergy^  at  which  Dr.  Moore  and  Mr.  Feltus  were  doubt- 
less to  be  among  my  judges.     But  it  appears  according  to 
Mr.  Jones's  account,  that  1  "  repented,"  and  suggested  the 
plan  in  some  manner  to  the  Bishop. 

The  truth  is,  that  in  all  the  plans  of  reference  proposed  by 
Mr.  Jones,  there  was  a  snare  laid  for  me.  He  was  anxious  in 
this  way  to  bring  me  to  a  level  with  himself.  He  chose  to  con- 
sider me  as  hostile  to  him,  and  as  having  in  the  indulgence  of 
this  hostility  injured  liim.  1  was  conscious  of  no  such  hostility, 
sensible  of  no  such  injury.  Of  hostility  and  of  injury  I  thought 
I  had  a  right  to  couiplain.  But  I  brought  no  accusations 
against  him.  I  protested  against  the  charge  of  cherishing  any 
■unpleasant  or  hostile  feelings  towards  him.  And  I  was  there- 
fore determined  not  to  sanction  the  opinion  that  there  was  a 
difference  between  us,  provoked  as  he  said  by  me,  by  con- 

•  Appeal,  p  84. 


(    18S    ) 

m 

Shifting  id  f&  Reference.'*  But  was  I  therefore  ayerse  to  l»e* 
eoneilia^n  with  Mr.  Jones  ?  His  own  <*  Appeal"  proves 
the  contrary.  Did  the  profession  of  regret  which  I  made 
in  every  case  in  which  I  discovered  that  I  had  wounded  his 
feelings ;  did  my  overtures  after  the  conversation  in  the  case 
of  Mr.  Gillet ;  did  my  forbeai»ance  in  procFaiming  to  the 
eongregations,  or  to  the  Church,  the  injurious  assaults 
fipon  my  eharaeter  which  I  had  received  from  Mr.  Jones ; 
did  all  thesfe  prove  my  aversion  to  conciliation  ?  And  even 
after  his  "  Appeal,"  in  manuscript,  had  been  shown  by 
him  to  many  persons;  aftei^  he  had  committed  it  to  the 
press,  and  held  it  as  a  rod  over  me^^I  even  then  authorized 
a  gentleman  of  high  standing  in  your  body,  to  profess  to 
him  my  earnest  disposition  to  conciliation,  to  live  with  him 
en  terms  of  harmony,  as  if  no  unpleasant  feelings  had  ever 
(Subsisted  between  us.  And  this  most  reasonable,  most  con- 
ciliatory advance  from  me,  he  declined,  and  proposed  a 
reference.  My  reasons  for  declining  this  reference,  I  stated 
to  the  member  of  ydur  body,  who  had  interested  himself  on 
the  subject,  and  he  declared  them  to  be  of  so  much  force 
that  he  could  not  press  me  to  assent  to  the  proposition.  At 
his  instance  I  committed  them  to  writing,  with  an  intention 
of  exhibiting  them,  through  him,  to  Mr.  Jones ;  but  n» 
Opportunity  ofiered  unUl  it  was  understood  that  the  «  Ap- 
peal" was  certainly  to  make  its  appearance  from  the  press, 
lids  written  detail  of  my  reasons  for  declining  a  reference^ 
uras  as  follows. 

«*  Dr.  Hobart  having  authorized  a  gentleman  to  assure 
Mr.  Jones  that  he  cherished  no  sentiments  of  hostility  to- 
wards him;  that  he  was  sincerely  disposed  to  conciliation ; 
and  to  treat  Mr.  Jones  in  a  friendly  manner ;  and  Mr. 
Jones  having  proposed  that  two  or  three  of  their  mutusd 
friends  should  meet  together  for  the  purpose  of  hearing 
any  statements  which  either  of  them  might  have  to  make; 
Dr.  Hobart  offers  the  following  remarks  on  this  proposi- 
tion: 

«  He  conceives  the  object  of  the  proposed  reference 
iittst  be,  either  an  investigation  of  the  merits  of  the  case 
with  a  view  to  a  decision  thereon ;  or,  simply  the  recoro- 
Biendation  of  mutual  conciliation. 

"  If  the  object  of  the  reference  be  the  recommenda- 

•  These  sentiments  with  respect  to  a  reference,  which  T  have  uniforraly  en^ 
tertained,  1  supposed  I  had  coramunic«te<l  to  Mr.  Elarris.  His  answer  to  an  in- 
quiry which  1  made  to  him  on  this  pcift.  Mates  tliafcJi^  hud  no  recollection  of  »nv 
such  conamunicailou. 


V^ 


(    134     ) 

tion  of  mutual  conciliation^  without  any  i«egard  to  the 
con^luct  of  the  parties,  Dr.  Hobart  professes  his  most 
cordial  disposition  to  promote  this  object ;  but  thinks  the 
proposed  reference  by  no  means  necessary  to  effect  it. 
He  has  conveyed  to  Mr.  Jones  his  sincere  disposition  to 
conciliation;  has  disclaimed  all  feelings  of  hostility  to 
him ;  has  professed  his  intention  to  treat  Mr.  Jones  as  if 
no  unpleasant  occurrences  had  taken  place.  In  appearing 
with  Mr.  Jones  before  any  individuals  for  the  purpose  or 
conciliation,  he  cOuld  do  no  more. 

<<  And  conscious  that  the  charges  of  injurious  treat- 
ment of  Mr.  Jones  sire  wholly  unmerited ;  and  thinking 
that  he  is  the  individual  most  seriously  aggrieved,^  he  can- 
not persuade  himself  that  he  ought  to  place  himself  in  a 
situation  in  which  the  formal  recommendation  to  both 
parties  of  mutual  oblivion  of  the  past,  would  lead  to  the 
inference,  which  he  feels  would  be  ^or unjust  as  respects 
himself,  that  both  parties  had,  perhaps,  equally  ofiended. 

<•  If  the  object  of  the  reference  be,  to  investigate 
and  decide  on  the  merits  of  the  case.  Dr.  Hobart  conceiv- 
ing that  there  is  no  difference  between  him  and  Mr.  Joneg 
any  further  tkan  this  gentleman  thinks  proper  to  repre- 
«ent  the  contrary ;  preferring  no  charges  against  him,  and 
requiring  from  him  no  acknowledgments  of  any  nature 
whatever,  feels  himself  at  a  loss  for  reasons  why  he 
should  voluntarily  submit  his  character  and  conduct  to 
the  investigation  and  decision  of  an  informal  tribunaL 
He  conceives  that  such  a  measure  would  not  tend  to  pro- 
mote that  harmony  which  is  considered  as  so  desirable. 
Such,  however,  is  his  earnest  desire  for  reconciliation, 
that  he  feels  disposed  to  consent  to  any  plan  than  has 
even  the  appearance  of  promoting  it. 

«  But  Mr.  Jones  having  currently  asserted  against 
Dr.  Hobart  the  charge  of  injurious  treatment  of  him ; 
having  kept  a  journal  of  several  particulars  in  Dr.  Ho- 
hart's  conversation  and  conduct,  with  the  view  of  esta- 
blishing this  charge  of  injurious  treatment ;  having  shown 
this  written  statement  to  several  persons  with  a  request 
that  they  would  peruse  it ;  having  committed  it  to  the 
press  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  publication,  in  order  to 
vindicate  his  own  conduct  and  to  impeach  that  of  Dr. 
Hobart ;  having  stated  to  a  respectable  Clergyman  who 
offered  his  services  as  mediator,  that  a  condition  of  recon- 
ciliation must  be  that  Dr.  Hobart  should  not  consent  to 
accept  an  office  in  the  Church  to  which  it  was  possible  he 
might  be  elected ;  having  declared  that  his  circulation  of 


/ 


7^ 


(    135    ) 

Ids  printed  memoir  would  depend  on  circumstances  con« 
nected  with  the  tilling  of  that  office ;— .Dr.  Hobart  con- 
ceives  that  in  justice  to  his  own  character  he  ought  not, 
by  any  formal  act  on  his  part,  to  induce  Mr.  Jones  to  re- 
linquish  a  mode  of  vindicating  himself  and  impeaching 
Dr.  Hobart,  which  he  has  publicly  avowed  it  his  inten- 

tion  to  pursue.  ,    .       « 

«  Still  Dr.  Hobart  professes  his  sincere  desire  for 
conciliation.  And  as  a  sufficient  evidence  of  his  sincerity, 
he  has  not  extended  beyond  the  circle  of  a  few  individuals, 
and  only  with  a  view  to  self-defence,  the  unpleasant  facts 
^connected  with  this  business ;  he  has  only  very  partklly 
engaged  in  the  impracticable  task  of  contradicting  to 
every  person  who  has  heard  them,  the  very  injurious 
charges  against  him;  and  continues  his  intention,  as  it 
uniformly  has  been,  to  pursue  towards  Mr.  Jones,  on  all 
occasions  where  duty  connects  them  together,  a  course  of 
conduct  in  which  the  m6st  scrutinizing  observer  could  not 
detect  any  thing  inconsistent  with  politeness,  with  deco- 
rum, with  the  claims  of  Christian  fellowship,  or  with  the 
sacred  relation  that  subsists  between  Mr.  Jones  and  him- 
self as  ministers  of  the  same  Gospel  and  of  the  same 
Church.'* 

The  above  observations  I  submitted  to  some  friends,  antf 
among  the  rest  to  «  the  mutual  friend,'*  who  Mr.  Jones 
states  had  suggested  that  we  should  "  lay  all  matters  before 
impartial  gentlemen,  to  have  a  judgment  passed  upon  the 
ease."*  They  coincided  with  me  in  the  opinion,  that  under 
these  circumstances  it  would  be  improper  to  agree  to  the 
proposed  reference. 

It  would  appear  then.  Gentlemen,  that  Mr.  Jones,  and 
not  myself  was  indisposed  to  conciliation.  What  more  could 
be  expected  fi'om  me  than  that  I  should  authorize  a  deela- 
ration  to  be  made  to  him  even  after  his  threatened  '*  Appeal'' 
was  in  the  press,  that  I  was  sincerely  disposed  to  concilia- 
tion, and  to  treat  him  in  a  friendly  manner  ?  On  my  part 
this  would  have  been  perfectly  easy;  for  this  had  been  my 
uniform  conduct  to  him.   And  this  proposition  he  declined.! 

•  Advertisement  to  Appeal.  .  «« xi     t» 

t  In  the  82d  page  of  the  "  Appeal"  appears  the  following  «entenec:  He,  Ur. 
.Beach,  was  also,  he  said,  acquainted  with  a  circumstance,  by  which  1. had  unequivo- 
cally evi'denced  ray  friendship  for  Dr.  Hobart;  while,  on  ray  being  nominated  toa 
particular  official  duty,  Dr.  Hobart  evidenced  his  displeasure  at  the  appointment. 
This  declaration  is  untrue.  1  had  expressed  pleasure  at  this  appomtmient.  And 
Dr.  Beach  (without  mv  knowledge  however)  waited  on  Mr.  Jones  and  rec^uirea 
lliin  to  make  the  correction.  Accordingly,  Mr.  Jones,  in  an  advertisement  in  th* 
IMipcr,  stated  thit  "  j^lewm^i^*  flught  to  be  wibstitutcd  foudtspkanvre-    Any  per- 


^yi^i^ 


(    136     ) 

Mr.  Joires's  dvertures  for  reconeiliatioH  were  accompanied 
wifh  certain  conditions,  one  of  which  was,  that  I  should  not 
consent  to  he  Bishop.  The  following  statement  from  Dr. 
Beach  will  throw  light  on  tliis  matter. 

« 

((tiest.  "  In  a  conversation  with  you  a  short  time  pre- 
viously to  the  late  Special  Convention,  did  you  not  state 
to  me  that  you  had  an  interview  with  Mr.  Jones,  and  that 
he  expressed  to  you  a  disposition  to  reconciliation  with 
me— hut  that  there  were  certain  conditions ;  one.  that  he 
should  be  replai^ed  in  the  Standing  Committee— and  the 
other,  that  I  should  not  consent  to  he  Bishop  ?" 
t  tins.  «  In  the  conversation  had  with  Mr.  Jones,  at  the 
request  of  a  most  respectable  member  of  our  Church, 
with  a  view  to  a  reconcilement  of  tlie  differences  which 
unliappily  subsisted  between  you  and  him,  the  conditions 
to  which  you  allude  wei-e  mentioned  by  him ;  but,  I  after- 
wards understood,  that  previously  to  the  publication  of 
his  pamphlet,  he  proposed  to  refer  all  matters  of  disagree- 
ment subsisting  between  you,  to  the  decision  of  three 
lay  gentlemen,  without  insisting  upon  any  conditions,  and 
to  abide  by  their  decision,  whatever  it  might  be.'' 

Dr.  Beach  would  have  it  appear  that  Mr.  Jones  after- 
wards relinquished  these  conditions.  But  his  very  propos- 
ing them  was  insulting  to  me;  and  an  indication  that  after 
all  his  parade  ot  "  self  defence,"  to  "  pull  me  down"  was 
his  real  object.  He  did  not  relinquish  the  condition  that  I 
should.be  Bishop.  For  he  informed  the  «  mutjial  friend"  to 
whom  he  alludes,  that  the  obstacle  to  conciliation  arising 
from  this  condition  was  removed  by  Dr.  Beach's  consenting 
to^be  Bishop;  who,  he  had  no  doubt,  would  be  elected. 
Ihus,  then,  the  condition  of  reconciliation  remained— I  was 
not  to  be  Bishop.  And  as  Mr.  Jones  was  satisfied  that  Dr. 
Beach,  who  had  consented  to  serve,  would  be  elected,  he 
consulered  the  obstacle  to  a  reconciliation  as  removed. 

ITie  report  has  been  zealously  propagated,  that  Bishop 
Moore  retused  to  give  Mr.  Jones  a  hearing;  and  that  there- 
tore  this  public  attack  upon  my  chai-acter  was  a  "  measure 
ol  self  defence."  I  have  authority  from  Bishop  Moore  to 
.declar^  that  he  has  no  recollection  of  anv  formal  demand 
upn  him  by  Mr.  Jones  for  an  investigation  of  any  com- 

b^^w^'een  ^j,^f ^/!^^"f«/''7«ntence  will  perceire  th.t  he  designs  to  state  a  contrast 

i^Se  n^^  nu       ^'^?*  '^P  .^^  "^^   unfrieudUness  for  him,   and  that  thi, 

{Xn«e     It  1^     J'k*''    *^  'i'P^^r''  ^^''••"y*  ^^«  «»«»"^"S  «id  force  of  the 
&em«oce.    it  wm  raUier  an  awkward  emtudatio^. 


>^ 


7 


C  i^^   ) 

plaints  against  me.  That  he  made  these  complaints  is  most 
certain.  And  some  years  before  he  had  made  complaints 
against  Dr.  Beach.  And  the  Bishop,  in  the  last  case  as  in 
the  former,  was  not  disposed  to  consider  his  complaints  as 
of  so  very  serious  a  nature.  As  a  friend  and  father  in  the 
Church,  the  Bishop  has  at  all  times  a  right  to  interpose  liis 
paternal  advice  and  admonition.  But  Mr.  Jones,  if  he 
knew  the  Canons  of  the  Church,  knew,  that  the  Bishop 
had  no  power  to  institute  an  investigation  of  the  conduct  of 
any  of  ids  Clergy  but  in  a  canonical  way.  And  for  this 
purpose  there  must  be  a  iri'esenlmenL  This,  if  Mr.  Jones 
bad  received  serious  injuries,  was  the  legal  and  regular 
mode  of  redi'ess.  The  Canons  admit  of  a  presentment  by 
three  Presbyters.  If  this  resource  had  failed ;  the  Canons 
admit  of  another  presentment  by  the  Vestry  of  the  Church  to 
which  the  accused  minister  belongs ;  and  fn  this  way  Mr* 
Jones  could  have  brought  his  complaints  before  your  body; 
with  a  request  that  you  would  investigate  them,  and  il*  you 
deemed  them  fit  subjects  of  complaint,  would  present  me 
to  the  Bishop ;  or,  if  my  offences  warranted  the  measure* 
you  could  have  dismissed  me  from  my  office  of  Assistant 
Minister.  And  if  this  resource  failed,  there  still  remained 
another,  which  doubtless  should  always  be  a  last  and  ex- 
treme one — ^presentment  by  the  Convention.  The  Bishop, 
on  a  presentment  must  have  instituted  a  board  of  Clergy,  to 
investigate  the  truth  of  the  presentment;  and  his  judgment, 
after  the  report  of  the  board  to  him,  is  final  on  the  case. 

Thus,  then,  Mr.  Jones's  plea  for  this  public  attack  upon  my 
character,  this  casting  his  "  Appeal"  as  a  fire-brand  into  the 
Church — that  the  Bishop  would  not  give  him  a  hearing,  is 
perfectly  idle.  Had  he  pursued  the  canonical  mode;  the 
Bisliop  could  not  have  refused  him  a  hearing.  The  go- 
vernment of  the  Church  is  a  government  of  laws ;  and,  HigU 
Churchman  as  I  am,  I  should  ever  oppose  every  other  kind 
of  government.  The  Canons  providing  for  the  trial  of  a 
Clergyman,  on  principles,  securing  Episcopal  supremacy  and 
authority  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  right  of  every  Clergy- 
man to  a  trial  by  his  peers  on  the  other,  I  well  recollect* 
were  adopted  by  the  Convention  of  this  State  on  a  proposi«> 
tion  of  my  own,  and  were  taken,  with  some  alterations,  from 
the  Canons  of  the  Church  in  Pennsylvania.  This  circum- 
stance is  no  otherwise  of  importance  than  as  it  proves  the 
injustice  of  the  charge  against  me,  that  I  am  the  advocate 
of  intolerant  and  arbitrary  principles.  The  wishes  of  my 
colleague,  hud  they  been  gratified,  would  have  established 
a  preeedent  for  siich  iprineiples.    For  he  wished  the  jBiihop 

■  ^  18 


i'> 


; 


(     138      ) 

to  institute  a  mode  of  investigating  my  conduct  by  calDn^' 
the  Clergy  together,  unknown  to  the  Canons^  and  therefore 
resting  on  individual  authority. 

But  this  charge  of  refusing  to  be  reconciled  before  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  appeal  is  followed  up  by  another,  that  since 
its  appearance 

/  have  manifeskd  the  same  indisposition  to  i^econciliationf 
and  have  even  disjplayed  a  persecuting  spirit  towards  Mr, 
Jones, 

Now  Geirtlenien,  without  meaning  disrespect  to  any  per- 
sons, I  must  be  permitted  to  observe,  that,  this  subject  of 
i-eeonciliation  is  talked  of  by  many  who  appear  to  me  to  un- 
derstand very  little  of  the  Christian  signitication  of  the 
word,  or  the  terms  on  which  Christianity  prescribes  it. 
When  we  r.re  commanded  to  "  love  our  enemies,'*  it  is  cer- 
tainly no^  designed  that  we  should  love  them  as  our  friends. 
The  recfuisition  implies,  that  we  wish  them  no  injury ;  that 
we  render  them  every  kindness  consistent  with  justice,  truth 
and  duty ;  and  that  we  be  ready  to  forgive  them.  But  this 
readiness  to  forgive  i^mplies  again  i-epentance  and  reparation 
oh  their  part.  Now  Gentlemen  every  one  of  these  disposi- 
tions I  pi*ofess  towards  my  colleague.  I  cannot  be  insensible 
that  on  this  subject  I  am  to  answer  to  a  tribunal  infinitely 
more  awful  than  any  earthly  one ;  and  that  my  danger  is- 
awful  should  I  here  deceive  mysetf. 

But  what  are  Mr.  Jones's  dispositions  ?  Disregarding  the 
advice  of  those  whom  he  consulted,  and  whose  stations  de- 
manded deference ;  disregarding  the  rules  and  the  order  of 
the  Church ;  disregarding  the  harmony  of  society,  the  peace 
of  the  Church,  public  decorum  and  private  feeling;  he  has 
issued  a  publication,  in  which  beholds  me  up  to  the  commu^ 
nity  as  a  man  of  unprincipled  ambition,  an  unrelenting  per- 
secutor, capable,  toansyver  any  sinister  designs,  of  misapply- 
ing money,  and  of  decrying  and  -treating  with  cruelty  all 
who  will  not  be  subservient  to  my  views.    And  am  I  requir- 
ed by  the  precepts  of  the  Gospel  to  meet  liim  in  fellowship 
and  harmony  while  his  serious  charges  remain  unretracted  ; 
while  he  discovei*s  no  regret  at  having  made  this  assault 
upon  my  character  ?     I  know  no  such  precept.   Christianity 
does  not  thus  confound  light  aud  darkness,  right  and  wrong, 
nor  subvert  justice  by  inculcating  this  indiscriminating  mer- 
cy.   I  disclaim  all  emotions  of  <<  vengeance.''    From  my 
heart  I  feel  disposed  to  forgiveness ;  but  what  are  the  dispo- 
sitions displayed  hj  Mr.  Jones  that  entitle  him  to  the  exer- 


>»»  I     *^ 


(     139     ) 

mse  of  this  forgiveness  ?  The  following  statements  will 
throw  light  on  this  subject.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Perry  is  the 
Clergyman  of  the  Chureh  at  Ballstown."^ 

<^  In  conversation  with  Mr.  Jones,  I  expressed  my 
regret  that  a  reconciliation  had  not  taken  place,  and  ask- 
ed him  whether  some  mode  could  not  be  devised,  whe- 
by  it  might  be  effected.  He  replied,  that  it  was  totally 
out  of  the  question — ^that  he  was  sincerely  disposed  liim- 
self  to  meet  his  opponents  on  middle  ground,  and  that  he 
had,  in  truth,  proposed  the  most  honourable  terms  of  ad- 
justment, which  were  rejected,  and  also  added,  that  so 
long  as  aspiring  ambition  reigned  in  the  breasts  of  his  ad- 
versaries, there  was  not  the  least  probability  of  a  settle- 
ment. The  facts,  says  he,  as  alleged  in  my  publication, 
are  perfectly  true,  and  they  know  them  to  be  such. 

^*  Dr.  Hobart  affected  to  treat  the  publication  at  first 
with  contempt ;  but  concluding  the  tide  of  public  senti- 
ment was  turning  against  him,  he  now  finds  it  necessary, 
as  I  am  informed,  to  give  it  a  reply :  I  am  willing  he 
should.  1  am  ready  to  meet  him.  I  have  facts  to  disclose, 
which  will  place  him  in  a  very  unfavourable  point  of  view ; 
.  and  as  sure,  says  he,  as  he  answers  my  publication,  I 
shall  rejoin.  But,  says  I,  if  what  you  have  stated  witli 
regard  to  Bishop  Hobart  be  true,  how  came  the  Clergy 
to  give  him  their  suffrage  ? 

^*  He  replied,  that  notwithstanding  they  had  done  so, 
yet  they  acted  contrary  to  their  feelings ;  they  did  not 
wish  him  to  be  their  Bishop ;  as  they  were  dependent,  in 
a  greiit  measure,  upon  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church  for 
their  support,  (which  Vestry  had  been  secured  by  some 
stratagem  or  other)  they  were  obliged  to  do  that  which 
should  merit  the  continuance  of  this  support.  I  do  not 
blame  them,  says  he,  for  they  must  have  a  maintenance. 
He  also  stated  that  the  Clergy  of  New-York,  (meaning 
his  opponents,)  were  resolved  to  drive  him  away ;  but  ad8- 
ed  that  they  would  find  themselves  much  mistaken— <that 


•  It  majr  be  proper  to  remark,  that  Mr.  Perry  never  conversed  with  rae  on  the 
subjeet  of  hU  statement.  He  visited  the  City  on  business  with  the  Vestry.  He 
left  the  City  on  a  visit  to  his  friends  in  Newtown,  Connecticut,  before  that  busi- 
ness was  completed.  I  did  not  request  his  testimony  until  after  this  business,  iu 
which  neither  myself  nor  any  of  my  friends  to  whom  he  had  made  that  statetneirt 
directly  or^  indirectly  exerted  ourselves,  was  finished.  I  must  also  observe,  that 
Mr.  Perry  is  known  to  be  a  worthy  and  amiable  roan.  He  expresses  in  his  letter 
the  most  earnest  wish  to  preserve  peace,  to  conciliate  rather  than  inflame;  he 
states  the  reluctance  with  which  he  feels  himself  compelled  by  a  regard  to  troth 
and  justice  to  give  his  testimony  ;  and  wishes  it  were  coosistent  with  propriety  and 
strict  Justice  that  it  shoTild  not  be  brought  into  public  view. 


1 


^ 


u* 


/ 


he  would  convinc*  them  of  the  contrary  fact,  and  would  do 
as  he  pleased. 

«  These,  are  the  most  prominent  facts  of  the  conversa- 
tion which  passed  between  Mr.  Jones  and  myself.  Tliev 
are  such  to  which  I  can  solemnly  attest. 

„  Ti-    ,  ,  ,  "  JOSEPH  PERRY. 

«  J\rewtown,  July  15,  1811." 

That  Mp.  Jones  expresses  nearly  the  same  sentiments  to 
others  will  appear  fi-om  the  following  statement. 

«  On  Thursday  the  lltli  ult.  I  aecidcntaUy  met  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Jones  in  Broadway.    As  it  was  tlie  first  time  I  had 
«*n  him  to  speak  with  him  since  the  publication  of  his 
Appeal,     I  determined  to  affoi-d  him  an  opportunity  to 
apo  ogize.  as  I  had  understood  he  was  desiroiis  of  doing, 
^  for  the  injurious  manner  in  which  my  name  had  been  men! 
tioned  in  that  work.     After  some  conversation,  to  an  ex- 
pression of  regret  on  my  part  that  he  had  not  taken  the 
adv.ce  of  his  friends  and  refrained  from  publishing  Ws 
pamphlet,  and  of  lamentation  at  the  mischief  and  ^Wsm 
IS  •/ "**  TT  ?  *''^*^'•">•t•h.  he  replied  that  he  £  «o7 
"SrfdmtheleaM.jxnd  that  whatever  mischief  or  sehlm 
existed  m  the  Church  was  chargeable  to  Dr.  Hobart,Z 
"  •^^^''f  ^'  1811-  JAMES  SWORDS." 

Thus,  then,  Mr.  Jones  is  not  sorry  for  his  puWieation 
Nay   he  i-enews  the  declaration  that  it  is  all  true,  and  S 

»  >iolent,  ambriious,   persecuting   man  ;   that  I   inisani,^ 
BMiney  to  answl-  my  own  views ,-  that  I  bring  theSde 
famatory  charges  against   a  brother  Clergyman  •   that  i 

^ZL  u    ^"^l  '"'/"*"  further-he  threatens  a  more 

prions  assanlt-he  has  facts  to  disclose  which  wiU  nk^ 
rij  conduct  m  a  very  unfavourable  point  of  view.    HcT 

to  Jumht  ""  "•^''"1*  r "  •"*'  •"  ^'"•^h  ''  -»'^  -  design 
ids  TtS„"r..     1  ^'f"^'''  *"•'  y*"*  '•^  «■'"'♦»••«  '« »>"t  forth  aU 

Lf^^  r/.i  ^?  r*  ""  *•*  """»"»  "»  »»'<"*  «»'an  that "  he 
has  a  htUe  slight  "  disliice"  to  me  as  not  «  a  marvellou! 

cKs^^n's't  t  ^^n    «^  """»«  ^'-  mo'snSS 
Kse  Tf^  U  t  '?•"'''  ''»^*^«:'  •«<?ome  mere  "  trifles," 
uecause   he  fails  m  his  proofs  of  them.     By  this  rule  of 
jadgment,  it  would  not  be  an  easy  matter  to  ^oiivL  a  man 


C    141     ) 

of  slander  and  defamation.  He  violently  ass-^^iU  m^  »«a 
^iien  defeated,  is  «  willing  to  give  up  the' combat  ."'^,:^ 
charge  pcmaininff  utiretraeted     ]Vn— Tlii.  ^^^^         '  ,         ^ 

o»K,«„,.  „„  »■«  «;»„rf-_,hM    .,  t^  u  Snot* 

erjnng  and  treating  with  cruelty  aU  who  .^3?    ' 

and  which  he  urees  aeainst  ml  «^h  „  j     ^""^  ""  ""^  ^5^' 
Ti.„»..  „_    I  •    'o      '*S«"nsi  me  and  endeavours  to  sunnJk 

chars^s  of  1^;  „  k}^  ^™''  '"J"'*'"^  »»«'  falsehood  of  th« 
hn!t¥.  I  if  K"'''"'  '"^*"*'^'''  «*^  the  system  of  inveterate 
hostility  which  this  accuser  had  been  pursuing  towarfshTm 
and  IS  able  by  the  most  satisfaetor,.  testimony  to  e^ablhh 
all  these  points,  wonld  think  « the  precepts  of  our  Chuth  " 
or  the  gospel,  required  that  he  should  sacrifice  his  own^h^ 

unmasking  the  real  dis,m..ii„„«    f  "-«e»nee  requires,  of 

^an   sS  t '  w.  ""P""'»S  *''e  most  ambitious  ami  uncbris- 
T6  hSe  des  rns^'S^^Te^sh^f  Vnott  'T7  *""j^^ 

a^'an^d-*'*''-    ^"  ^^^^^^i:^ 
dy  s^s  "  thtldT:^  IS  evidently  Us  design.      L  Xea- 

LipdistrethiTr^fi"'!^^^^  "^^■-*'  "^  ^-  ^«* 

bufcl*traririsrM^«"''"»  "••>"'  '**  '**"™  "  «'«  ^«''  «"!' 

despitefuTly  ^^t"'Ti'  *"?  "  *^  •"«  S*"^  *«  *««»  t»««t 
<heieDreoeJr=.n^'*»'^  '**"'*  "*^  Without  doul)t  But 
tnese  precepts  and  similar  ones,  are  restricted  by  consideTT 


'/i 


(1 


>■ 


j 


I 


[f 


> 


(     1*2     ) 

tSoiis  of  prudf^nee,  of  justice,  and  of  public  good.  If  onr  neigk- 
bour  has  grossly  abused  our  confidence,  and    severely  in- 
jured us,  does  this  precept  require  that  we  give  him  an  op- 
portunity of  grossly  abusing  our  confidence,  and  severely 
injuring  us  again  ?     Prudence  forbids.     If  a  man  has,  for  a 
long  course  of  years,  been  indulging  the  most  unworthy 
passions  by  acts  of  secret  hostility  to  an  unsuspecting  friend, 
and  seeks  to  revenge  his  supposed  wrongs  by  means  entirely 
subversive  of  private  decorum,  of  social  confidence,  and  of 
public  oixler ;  do  the  precepts  of  Christianity  require  that 
this  individual  should  be  maintained  in  his  former  standing; 
should  thus  virtually  be  rewarded  for  his  injurious  acts;  and 
that  the  means  of  indulging  those  jealous  and  envious  pas- 
sions, which  <^  mortification"  may  disguise,  but  can  never 
laubdue,  to  the  reiterated  disturbance  of  public  and  private 
feeing,  be  continued  to  him  ?    Justice  and  the  public  good 
Ibrbid. 

Would  the  merchant  be  accused  of  wanting  the    tem- 
per of  the  Christian,  who  should  refuse  to  manage  a  con- 
cern with  an  individual  who  had  been  watching  and  not- 
ing his  words  and  actions  in  the  moments  of  unsuspecting 
confidence ;  and  when  a  favourable  opportunity  occurred  to 
blast  his  credit^  should  publish  him  to  the  world  as  base  and 
unprincipleil  in  his  dealings  ?     Would  the  lawyer  or  phy- 
sician be  condemn.^d  as  implacable  and   revengeful,  who 
should  renounce  all  professional  intercourse  with  a  man 
who  should  violate  all  the  laws  of  confidence  and  honour  by 
which  that  intercourse  ought  to  be  regelated  ?     Would  the 
members  of  any  society,  literary  or  political,  act  unworthy 
of  the  Christian  profession,  by  excluding  from  the  privileges, 
of  Cheir  bo<ly  an  individual,  who,  in  the  indulgence  of  selfish 
and  ji^alous  passidns,  liad  sought  to  stir  up  strife  and  ani- 
mosities ;  aid  finally,  disregarding  the  rules  of  the  institu- 
tion, had  diSi^r-aced  it  to  the  world,  by  proclaiming  the  feuds 
wiHch  he  had  excited?     Would  the  plea  of  conscience  jus- 
tify these  acts?     What  crime  has  not  been  practised,  what 
passions  not  indulged  under  the  cloak  of  conscience !  If  the 
plea  be  sincere,  what  may  not  be  feared  from  one,  who, 
for  conscience  sake,  could  commit  such  conduct  and  indulge 
such  passions !     Would  we  denounce  the  civil  ofllcer  as  the 
unrelenting  persecutor,  who,  unseduced  by  applauses,  op 
unawed  by  threats,  should  steadily  refuse  to  conduct  the 
counsels  of  his  country  in  near  connection  with  a  man  who 
had  been  plotting  against  his  reputation,  had  betrayed  his 
confidence,  and  denounced  him  to  the  world  ?  The  instances 
:ipe  trite — ^they  are  of  daily  occurrence— and  for  that  very 


'*^ 


(    1*3    ) 

reason  they  are  conclusive.  And  yet,  in  all  these  cases  w<^ 
hear  no  outcipr  about  in;ii^«ce,  and  oppression,  and  imvlaca^ 
ble  resmtmmU  and  persecution,  and  confiscation,  and  trans 
portation,  B^nd  visiting  tlie  sins  of  the  fathers  upon  the  c/n7- 
dren^but  if  the  cry  be  raised;  the  just,  the  fi/m^jusius  et 
fenoov-remains  unshaken  from  his  pui-pose. 

But  we  expect  different  things  from  Clergymen.    What— 
are  dismterestedness,  and  frankness,  and  honour,  and  mu- 
tual confidence  unnecessary  in  the  management  of  ecclesi- 
astical affairs  ?     Is  that  prudence  which,  taught  by  lone 
painful,  -  dear  bought"  experience,  seeks  to  guard  againft 
the  unworthy  acts  by  which  reputation  may  be  injured,  and 
harmony,  ^jd  honour,  and  the  public  good  invaded,  a  vir- 
tue in  secSlar  affairs,  and  in  spiritual,  a  vice  ?     Or  is  the 
Bishop  the  modern  Midas,  who  can  change  every  thing  he 
touches  into  gold;  who  can  transform  the  cmining,  the  self- 
ish, the  envious,  the  malignant,  into  the  open,  the  disinter- 
ested, the  noble,  thetgenerous  and  good  ?    Enviable,  indeed, 
would  be  the  "  snug  and  comfortable"  station  of  a  Bishop, 
if  to  all  his  «*  gifts,  and  power,  and  patronage"  were  added 
this. 

But  can  the  Bishop,  the  Haman  of  the  palace,  he  in  danger 
from  the  humble  Mordecai  at  tliegate'^  Yes,  if  the  modern 
Mordecai  has  changed  passions,  though  not  name,  with  Ha- 
man  of  old.    And  if  the  envious  and  calumnious  tale  of  a 
m4)dem  Mordecai,  when  aimed  against  a  humble  Presbyter 
could  sink  into  the  ears,  and  it  would  seem  into  the  heart 
of  the  dispassionate,  the  generous,  the  ardent  asserters  of 
justice ;  what  may  we  not  expect  will  be  the  effect  upon  the 
mass  of  mankind  of  some  similar  tale  when  aimed  against 
«  a  high  ecclesiastic  character,"  and  pressing  into  its  ser- 
vice the  "  flames  of  a  Smithfield  conflagration,"  the  "  cru- 
elties of  pontifts,"  "  the  persecutions  fulminated  from  the    * 
Vatican  ?"  And  yet  the  Bishop,  with  his  splendid  mitre,  his 
gopgpous  robes,  Ws  gifts,  his  power,  his  patronage  (all,  in 
odr  Church  and   in  our  country  mere  embellishments  of 
tancy)  IS  a  pensioner,  Gentlemen,  on  your  bounty. 

Little  do  tliese  Laymen  know  of  the  cares  that  disturb  the 
rest,  the  burdens  that  weigh  down  the  spirit  of  those  who 
they  lancy  sit  at  "  ease  in  their  studies,"  enjoyinff  the 
''  snug  and  comfortable  dignity"  of  the  Ei>iscopate.  Little 
surely  do  they  know  of  these ;  or  some  portion  of  their  ten- 
derness and  sympathy  would  be  extended  to  one  who 
must  be  compelled,  it  appears,  with  no  large  portion  of  ex- 
perience, of  age,  or  it  would  seem  of  temper,  to  sustain 
the  cares,  to  conflict  with  the  difficulties  of  a  station/ at 


\. 


.*-  c 


-i> 


(  1**  > 

this  period,  more  than  usually  arduous,  exposed  fa  the  scru- 
tinizing observation,  the  jealous  and  malignant  machina- 
tions of  one  whose  passions  are  sharpened  by  temporary 
mortification  and  defeat.  Little  do  they  know  of  the  num- 
berless opportunities  in  which  with  impunity  he  may  plant 
thorns  in  the  bosom,  and  place  obstacles  in  the  patlt  of  on© 
jwhom  he  has  chosen  to  consider  as  his  rival.  For  Mordecai, 
let  them  be  assured,  will  not  sit  contented  at  the  gate-rlie 
must  be  admitted  to  a  portiQn  at  least,  and  a  large  portion 
too,  of  the  counsels,  and  confidence,  and  honours  of  the 
palace. 

.  Gentlemen,  let  me  not  be  misunderstood — I  stand  on  the 
defensive — I  have  been  accused,  for  some  tim;^very  cur- 
rently in  secret,  in  certain  circles;  and  publiHy,  though 
somewhat  obliquely  of  late ;  of  still  persecuting  my  col- 
league. I  have  been  applied  to  by  some,  for  whose  good 
intentions  I  entertain  the  highest  respect,  to  interpose  with 
you  in  his  behalf.  In  my  conscience  ([^rdon  the  term  Gen- 
tlemen, it  is  sacred  to  me,  abused  as  it  is) — *in  my  conscience 
I  could  not.  They  loudly  urged,  and  something  within  me 
whispered  also,  that  it  would  be  popular,  exti*emely  pojmlar 
to  do  so.  But  in  my  conscitnce  I  could  not.  The  good  of 
the  Church  (this  is  not  sui'ely  a  phrase  without  meaning) 
and  even  the  ultimate  advancement  of  that  «  peace  and 
quietness  among  Christian  people"  which  1  had  recently 
vowed  to  promote,  forbade.* 

All  feelings  towards  Mr,  Jones  inconsistent  with  tlie  tem- 
per of  a  Christian  I  utterly  disclaim.  On  this  point,  I  re- 
peat it,  I  consider  my  respons?bility  to  another  tribunal  than 
that  of  the  world.  Personally,  I  am  not  his  opponent.  Apaj;*t 
from  considerations  of  justice,  and  honour,  and  public  in^ 
terest,  there  are  no  favoui's,  no  emoluments,  the  enj  ;y- 
ment  of  which  by  him  would  excite  in  me  one  emotion  of 
repining.  - 

1  aloae  am,  in  all  fesj/ects,  responsible  for  this  address. 
Some  very  small  portions  of  it  only  I  have  accidentally  read 
to  some  few  individu'.ds.  \\hen  my  colleague  and  friend, 
Mr.  How,  left  llie  city,  tliree  weeks  ago,  on  a  melancholy 
journey,  but  a  few  pages  of  it  wei'e  written.  He  has  seen 
^  only  one  or  two  pai'agraphs,  and  some  of  the  statements  which 
were  necessary  to  his  omu  defence.     I  have  advised  with 

•  I  deny  erer  having  used  the  term  "  he  fmist  go  av/ay,"  with  the  most  remote 
intention  of  dictating.  I  forbej^r  to  dwell  on  the  injustice  whith  ennid  pervi  rl  a 
term  used  by  me  in  earnest  con versaiioo  with  an  indiyidual  who  I  btlicve  l.«d 
commenced  the  cOnrersation  with  me,  snd  who  had  used  the  very  term  ijimscif 
certainly  with  no  view  but  to  express  his  strong  sense  of  the  importance  of  his 
ft^ment. 


(     145     ) 

him  or  with  others  neither  as  to  the  matter  nor  the  style* 
His  distance  from  me,  and  the  state  of  his  feelings  would 
have  prevented  this ;  had  I  not  purposely  resolved,  foi'  several 
reasons,  to  act  wholly  independent  of  Ws  counsel  or  aid. 

It  is  not  mote  than  f(s^  or  six  weeks  since  I  resolved  on 
this  address ;  and  the  circumstances  which  delayed  my  com- 
mencing it  were  wholly  unavoidable.  It  has  been  sttuck  off 
by  the  printers,  as  it  was  prepared,  as  rapidly  as  was  in  their 
power.  I  mention  these  circumstances,  to  preclude  the 
suspicion  that  its  appearance  at  this  moment  is  the  result  of 
some  unworthy  design.  You  must  permit  me  earnestly  and 
respectfully  to  solicit,  that  no  act  of  yours,  at  your  next 
meeting,  ra»y  furnish  a  pretext  for  imputing  this  design  to 
me. 

Gentlemen,  itiy  cause  I  feel  is  a  just  one — I  would  fain 
believe  mankind  just ;  and  then  I  am  confident  of  their  sen- 
tence. But  sometimes  I  ha:ve  thought  I  saw  persons  pro- 
fessing the  most  refined  honour,  the  most  cultivated  taste, 
the  most  correct  sensibility ;  and  yet  listening  to  the  mut- 
terings  of  Envy  planning  her  schemes  of  detraction,  and 
Can e,¥- them  the  moans  of  Innocence,  on  her  lonely  way,  flee- 
ing from  tjie  scourge  of  the  oppressor.  I  saw  them  turn 
^iver.  the  records  of  envy  and  suspicion  discolouring  facts, 
niagnifying  trifles,  registering  the  language  and  giving  a  dis- 
torted "  form  and  substance"  to  the  «  voice,  and  look,  and 
gesture,"  of  the  unsuspecting  apologist  and  friend— I  saw 
them  turn  over  these  records,  at  which  delicacy  revolts,  and 
violated  confidence  shudders ;  and  dignify  them  with  the  title 
of  *^  records  of  mmial  suffering:'  I  saw  them  behold 
«  the  writhings  of  a  mind  lacerated"  by  jealousy,  and  weep 
uver  them  with  the  tenderest  sympathy. 

I  have  sometimes  thought  I  saw  persons  versed  in  legal 
lore,  professing  themselves  tlie  champions  of  the  rights  of 
the  oppressed— and  yet  I  saw  them  become  partizan's  with- 
out being  *•  intimate  with  either  of  the  parties;"  deciding 
on  the  merits  of  a  cause  on  an  exparie  statement ;  endea- 
vouring to  deprive  the  accused  of  his  privilege  of  an  impar- 
tial hearing,  and  to  ensure  his  condemnation,  by  prejudg- 
ing  both  his  testimony  and  his  defence.  I  saw  them  with 
deceitful  hand  and  perverted  eye,  take  the  scales  of  justice ; 
*°^  ^^igWng  in  them  the  calumniator,  and  him  who  was 
the  object  of  his  foul  calumny ;  the  unsuspecting  friend,  and 
him,  who,  under  the  cloak  of  friendship,  concealed  the  ar- 
rows of  detractitott  and  the  steel  of  vengeance— and  pronounce 
them  equally  in  the  tvrong. 

I  thought  I  saw  Laynun  professing  to  have  a  commission 

19 


i 


-> 


(     U6     ) 

AB  preachers  of  "  the  precepts  of  our  Church*'— and  yet  I 
saw  them  contemplate  the  wrongs  of  their  neighbour,  the 
injuries  which  the  tongue  of  defamation  had  inflicted  on  his 
character,  the  sorrows  of  his  heart  assailed  by  treacherous 
friendship  seeking  to  blast  his  reputation,  to  strip  him  of 
the  confidence  which  he  enjoyed,  to  hold  him  up  to  scorn 
and  odium-^I  saw  them  contemplate  these  wrongs,  these 
injuries,  these  sorrows,  and  call  them  «  trifles/^  and  make 
them  the  sport  of  irony ;  and  then  turn  and  gravely  preach 
the  precepts  of  mercy,  the  lessons  of  forgiveness. 

I  like  neither  the  fancy  nor  the  hearts  of  these  philan- 
thropists ;  neither  the  maxims  nor  decisions  of  these  coun- 
sellors and  judges.  I  like  not  the  doctrines  or  the  morals 
of  these  preachers  of  the  "  precepts  of  our  Church."  They 
were  not  brought  up  at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel ;  they  have  not 
been  taught  by  him  who  pronounced  a  woe  on  the  envious^ 
hypocritical,  and  deceitful  Pharisees ;  nor  in  the  school  of 
the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  have  they  imbibed  ought  of  his 
noble,  ai*dent,  and  generous  virtue.  Those  who  know  not, 
or  violate  the  rules  of  justice,  may  undertake  to  inculcate 
the  duties  of  mei*cy— but  their  commission  is  false — ^it  is 
ibrged  by  their  vanity-^Thou  that  teachest  another^  teachest 
thou  not  thyself?  Thou  that  teachest  mercy,  dost  thou  for- 
get justice  ? 

Ithought  these  persons  were  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  me 
— and  I  trembled-— I  like  them  not. 

But  this  was  only  a  vision  of  my  fancy.  I  see  none  such 
on  the  tribunal  which  I  address.  Gentlemen,  I  am  no  sup- 
pliant. Did  I  supplicate ;  it  would  be  for  release  from  the  ties 
of  a  station,  in  which  the  inveterate  passions,  that  for  years 
have  assailed  my  peace,  my  feelings  and  my  usefulness,  are 
still  to  be  directed  against  me,  with  the  opportunities  of  suc- 
cessfully indulging  them  tenfold  increased.— I  should  sup- 
plicate that  I  might  no  longer  be  compelled  to  behold  con- 
gregations which  were  once  peaceable  thrown  into  confusion, 
and  a  Church  which  once  Iwasted  of  being  at  unity  in  herself 
rent  by  discord,  and  her  honours  laid  in  the  dustr— I  should 
supplicate  to  be  permitted  to  retire  from  a  scene  so  pain- 
ful, to  pursuits  and  enjoyments  most  gratifying  to  my  own 
heart,  to  the  wishes  of  my  family.  But  for  my  faults— «I 
crave  neither  your  pity  nor  your  mercy— Your  wonted  af- 
fection, believe  me,  I  shall  not  lose  without  a  pang— Yet 
even  this  pang  will  find  a  solace— For  I  boldly  claim  your 
justice.    In  nought  have  I  offended.    "  I  will  not  let  go  my 

integrity.'*  _ 

^  J.H.HOBART. 

JWrc-Fark,  August  7,  ISll. 


w      *t^ 


r 


ERRATA, 

Page  8,  line  la  from  bottom,  after  "  that"  read  **  I." 

Page  67,  line  17  fix)ra  bottom,  after  **  with'*  read"'*  him  conoerning.' 

Page  139,  line  6  of  note,  for  **  themselves"  read  "  ourselves." 

Page  141,  6th  line  from  the  bottom,  for  "  his  object"  read  '*  its  otgect' 


.» 


n 


«  im 


!^N^ 


A  STATEMENT, 

Bii  Hi^  JUv.  Mr.  How,  in  reply  to  those  parts  of  the  Pam'> 
jfhUt  of  the  Ev.  Mr.  Jone»,  which  rdatt  more  particular^ 
to  himself 


><i» 


y//f 


<# 


It  is  with  the  most  unfeigned  reluctance  that  I  enter  upon 
the  task  of  replying  to  the  charges  brought  against  me  in  a 
late  pamphlet  put  out  in  the  name  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jones. 
From  the  first  appearance  of  the  pamphlet,  in  question,  I 
had  determined  not  to  take  the  slightest  public  notice  of  it 
And  in  such  determination  I  persevered,  for  a  long  time, 
notwithstanding  the    earnest  entreaties    of  many  of  my 
friends  that  I  would  give  a  correct  statement  of  the  various 
transactions  which  Mr.  Jones  has  described  so  much  to  my 
disadvantage.    A  public  controversy  between  the  ministers 
of  Christ  appeared  to  me  to  be   so  disgraceful  to  the 
Church,  and  so  destructive  of  her  best  interests,  that  I  re- 
solved to  sacrifice  all  personal  considerations  and  feelings 
to  her  peace  and  honour.    But  extraordinary  industry  has 
been  employed  in  cu-culating  the  pamphlet  of  Mr.  Jones, 
and  in  representing  him  as  an  injured  and  persecuted  man. 
I  am  charged  with  the  most  malicious  feelings  towards  him^ 
and  am  held  up  incessantly  to  the  community,  as  having 
violated,  in  my  intercourse  with  Dr.  Beach,  the  common 
rules  of  decency.    Wherever  the  stories  which  are  in  cir- 
culation may  receive  credit,  my  character  must  materially 
suffer,  and  the  influence  of  my  ministry  be  seriously  im- 
paired.   It  is  confidently  said  that  no  answer  is  given  to  the 
pamphlet  ^  Mr.  Jones,  because  his  statements  are  strictly 
correct,  and  cannot  be  contradicted.    I  yield,  therefore,  to 
tlie  entreaties  of  my  friends.    I  b<egin  to  think  it  my  duty 
to  speak.    I  shall  endeavour  to  do  it  in  a  spirit  which  may 
not  disgrace  the  cause  of  truth.  ...        ,   ^       i. 

If  no  consequences  were  involved  in  this  business  but  such 
as  afiect  me  personally,  I  should  never  have  taken  up  my 
pen— I  should  have  remained  perfectly  satisfied  and  tran- 
quil. But  I  deem  it  to  be  of  great  importance  to  endeavour 
to  remove  impressions,  which  may  have  been  made  upon  the 
minds  of  men,  whom  I  have  every  reason  to  respect,  by 
those  incorrect  representations  which  I  know  to  be  eircuiated 
with  <he  most  pers«vering  industry, 

a 


(     2     ) 

I  was  called  to  the  office  of  Assistant  Minister  of  Trinity 
Church  in  July,  1808.  Until  the  30th  of  March,  1810,  ^ 
period  of  nearty  two  years,  Mr.  Jones  brings  no  charge 
against  nte.  On  the  contrary,  he  explicitly  states,  that  my 
behaviour  had  been  uniformly  friendly ;  "  that  he  had  had 
no  l*eason  to  complain,  and  that  he  had  done  me  the  justice 
to  acknowledge  it  upon  all  occasions.^'*  The  Rev.  Mr. 
Harris  will  also  recollect,  that  he  mentioned  to  me  that  he 
had  heard  Mr.  Jones  expr^s  his  perfect  satisfaction  with  my 
conduct  towards  him.  Indeed,  I  never  took  more  pains  to 
satisfy  a  man  than  I  took  to  satisfy  Mr.  Jones.  1  saw  clearly 
that  his  expectations  were  high ;  that  the  most  scrupulous 
attention  to  even  small  matters  would  be  expected  from  me ; 
and  I  acted  accordingly.  It  was  my  anxious  desire,  and  my 
firm  determination,  to  promote,  by  all  the  means  in  my 
power,  that  cordial  intercourse  with  my  colleague,  which 
was,  obviously,  so  important  to  the  peace  and  prosperity  of 
the  Church.  And  I  cannot  but  congratulate  myself,  that 
my  eftbrts  were  crowned  with  success,  in  a  case,  in  which, 
let  it  be  taken  for  granted,  success  could  be  secured  only  by 
scrupulous  and  persevering  care. 

And  here  it  ought  to  be  mentioned,  that  the  conduct  of 
Mr.  Jones,  upon  my, being  called  to  Trinity  Church,  was, 
certainly,  not  of  a  nature  to  make  a  pleasant  impression 
upon  my  mind.  In  conversation  with  some  of  my  friends, 
who  were  so  good  as  to  express  their  satisfaction  upon  the 
occasion,  he  conducted  in  such  a  way  as  to  convince  them 
that  he  was  disappointed  and  mortified  at  what  had  been 
done.  If  I  had  been  inclined  to  complaint  and  suspicion,  I 
should  have  marked  this  conduct  of  Mr.  Jones  as  uafriendly, 
and  might  have  suffered  it  to  dwell  in  my  mind  until  it  had 
generated  a  spirit  of  hostility.  But  the  thing  really  pro- 
duced no  effect  upon  me,  and  1  was  resolved  to  convince  Mr. 
Jones,  that  he  would  ever  find  me  disposed  to  live  with  him 
upon  those  terms  of  respect,  and  of  mutual  good  offices, 
which  were  so  becoming  the  sacred  relation  in  which  we- 
stood  to  each  other. 

It  ov.i^ht  10  he  mentioned  further,  that,  notwithstanding  the 
serii|nilous  respect  and  friendliness  with  whichi  always  treat- 
ed Ml*.  Jooos,  he  has  been  wanting^  in  his  intercourse  with  me, 
in  those  civilities  wliich  I  had  the  most  unquestionable  right 
la  expect  at  his  hands,  lle^^  called  to  see  me — ^I  returned  the 
compliment.  He  has  never  thought  proper  to  confer  on  me 
any  further  attentions.    We  were  assistant  ministers  of  the 


Appeal  to  tbe  Church,  p.  37. 


W 


(     3     ) 

same  Church.  Upon  no  person,  therefore,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  rest  of  my  colleagues,  had  I  so  much  claim  to 
the  offices  of  civility.  Notwithstanding  this,  I  repeatedly 
invited  Mr.  Jones  to* dine  with  me  on  Sunday;*  and,  on  one 
occasion,  I  gave  him  a  formal  invitation  to  dinC  at  my  house 
with  the  Clergy. — It  is  true,  he  declined  all  these  attentions. 
I  certainly  did  feel  wounded.  I  thought  myself  treated  with 
disrespect ;  especially  as  Mr.  Jones  occasionally  invited  Cler- 
gymen to  his  table.|  But  I  I'esolved  that  it  should  have  no 
influence  upon  my  conduct ;  and  that  I  succeeded  in  carrying 
tliis  resolution  into  effect,  Mr.  Jones  himself  fully  acknow- 
ledges.^ 

When  all  this  is  recollected,  I  think  I  may  claim  some  me- 
rit in  having  so  acted  toward  Mr.  Jones,  for  nearly  two  years, 
as  to  satisfy  even  his  most  extensive  expectations.^ 

The  first  charge,  preferred  against  me,  relates  to  an  inter- 
view which  took  place  between  Dr.  Bowden,  Mr.  Jones, 
Mr.  Lyell,  and  myself,  on  the  thirtieth  of  March,  1810. 
Mr.  Jones  represents  nje  as  having  treated  him,  upon  that 
occasion,  with  the  utmost  rudeness.  But  Dr.  Bowden  and 
Mr.  Lyell  view  the  matter  in  a  very  different  point  of  light. 
They  observed  none  of  that  rudeness  which  is  so  confidently 
imputed  to  me. 

«  We  do  certify,  that  in  the  interview  which  took  place 
March,  1810,  between  the  Rev.  Mr.  How  and  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Jones,  nothing  occurred  which  could  justify  Mr.  Jones 
in  asserting,  that  Mr.  How  treated  him  in  «  an  impe- 
rious and  authoritative  manner ;"  but,  on  the  contrary,  we 
have  a  clear  and  distinct  impression,  that,  while  Mr.  How 
spoke  his  sentiments  freely,  botli  his  language  and  his  man- 
ner were  unexceptionable. 

"  Mr.  Jones'  notes,  we  are  confident,  are  very  inaccurate 
on  this  point  as  well  as  on  many  other  points. 

^<  JOHN  BOWDEN, 
<«  THOMAS  LYELL. 

<«  wYcw-Forfe,  Juhj  5,  1811."' 

Mr.  Jones,  let  it  be  recollected,  is  the  historian  of  his  own 
wrongs.    And  a  man  who  can  bring  himself  to  i*ecord,  from 

*  Mr.  Joneg  lived  out  of  the  city. 

f  It  would  be  difficult  to  assign  aoy  other  cawse  of  the  treatment  wliich  I  re- 
ceived from  Mr.  Jones  than  the  intimacy  which  subsisted  between  Dr.  Hobart 
and  me. — ^Clergymen  who  have  since  settled  in  the  city,  have  been  ticaied  with 
immediate  and  pointed  attention  by  Mr  Jones  ;  ant!  yet  they  have  not  sti^od  in 
the  same  intimate  official  relation  to  him  with  myself. 

+  Appeal  to  the  Church,  p.  37.  §  Appeal,  p.  37. 


t  • 


II 


(  *  ) 

day  to  dBjf  the  grievances  which  he  sufiers  from  those 
around  him,  i¥ill  often  be  employed,  more  in  describing  chi- 
meras, than  in  relating  facts.  Mr.  Jones  appears  to  have 
been  constantly  looking  out  for  insult.  His  mind  wai,  plainly, 
in  a  very  feyerish  state.  I  certainly  did  think,  at  the  time, 
that  I  had  conducted  myself  with  propriety.  Mr.  Jones  will 
be  so  good  as  to  recollect  that  I  was  his  equal,  and  had  a 
right  to  address  him  as  such.  But  the  truth  is,  he  consi- 
dered me  as  a  young  man,  and  thought  it  very  presumptu- 
ous in  me  to  approach  him  without  a  greater  degree  of  cere- 
mony. In  complaining,  at  the  time,  of  my  conduct,  "  a 
young  man  in  the  ministry,^*  were  his  emphatical  words. 

It  is  proper  that  the  circumstances  which  led  to  the  inter- 
view in  question  should  here  be  explained.  The  conduct  of 
Mr.  Ireland  had  long  attracted  the  piirtieular  attention  both  of 
the  friends  and  enemies  of  our  Church.  His  conduct,  indeed, 
was  a  common  subject  of  reproach  to  us;  and  the  character 
of  the  Church  was  considered  as  imperiously  requiring  that 
he  should  be  called  to  account.  He  was  in  the  notorious  and 
avowed  practice  of  usury.  He  had  treated  the  Vestry  and 
^Vardens  of  St.  Anne's  Church,  Brooklyn,  with  the  grossest 
injustice  and  contempt.  Upon  one  of  the  members  of  that 
boai'd,  after  first  abusing  him  in  the  most  scurrilous  lan- 
guage, and  daring  him  to  go  out  and  fight,  he  had  commit- 
ted an  actual  assault,  for  which  he  was  bound  over  to  keep 
the  peace.  And,  generally,  his  chai'acter  and  conduct  were 
such  as  reflected  constant  and  deep  disgrace  upon  the  cleri- 
cal profession.  It  was  thought  indispensable  that  something 
should  be  done.  And  Mr.  Jones  himself  tells  us  that  his 
own  representation  of  the  injury  which  Mr.  Ireland  was 
likely  to  do  at  Jamaica  led  to  an  investigation  of  Ids  con- 
duct.^K'  Mr.  Jones  will  also  recollect  that  the  final  determi- 
nation tp  institute  an  inquiry  was  taken  at  a  clerical  meeting 
which  he  attended ;  that  he  cordially  acquiesced  in  the  deter- 
mination;! ^^^  he  went  with  Mr.  Lyell  and  myself  to 
Brooklyn,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  information;  and 
that  he  really  acted  the  most  conspicuous  part  in  tlie  inqui- 
ries which  wei*e  made.  Mr.  Jones,  too,  drew  up  the  charges 
against  Mr.  Ireland  upon  which  he  was  brought  to  trial. 
This  he  has  not  mentioned.  In  fact,  he  was,  emphatically, 
the  man  who  put  the  inquiry  relative  to  Mr^  Ii'el^nd  in  mo- 

•  Appeal  to  the  Church,  p,  34. 

f  My  impression  is,  that  Mr.  Jones  proposed  that  some  persons  shoald  go  to 
Brooklyn  to  make  inquiry.  This,  also,  is  the  impression  of  others  who  attended 
the  meeting  in  question.  And  all  unite  in  saying  that  no  man  was  more  ready 
and  active  on  the  occasion  than  himself. 


s*  ftu 


t^ 


(  ^  ) 

tion,  and  who  arraigned  him  before  the  Bishop.  The  case, 
at  length,  was  brought  to  trial.  Mr.  Jones  took  an  active 
part  Finally,  the  Board  gave  judgment ;  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Harris  recommending  suspension  from  the  ministry;  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Beach,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wilkins,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Coo- 
per, and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hobart,  the  refaaining  members  of 
Boai'd,  recommending  degradation.  The  whole  proceedings 
were  then  submitted  to  the  Bishop,  by  whom  the  sentence, 
of  degradation  was  confirmed. 

TJius  the  matter  was  brought  to  a  termination.  The 
canons  of  the  Church,  in  this  State,  expressly  declare,  that 
the  decision  of  the  Bisliop,  in  such  cases,  sliall  be  final ; 
and  tliere  is  not  an  instance,  in  the  whole  history  of  the 
Christian  Church,  of  the  restoration  of  a  degraded  Clergy- 
man. No  provision  is  made  for  a  new  trial.  The  decision 
of  the  Bishop,  upon  the  report  of  the  Board,  puts  an  end  to 
ihe  proceedings.  There  is  no  further  appeal.  Of  this  Mr. 
Jones  could  not  be  ignorant.  But,  notwithstanding  this,  a 
clamour  was  raised ;  very  threatening  language  was  em- 
ployed ;  anonymous  letters  of  a  most  scurrilous  nature  were 
written  to  the  Bishop;  and  it  was  plainly  declared,  that 
compulsory  measui'es  would  be  taken  to  produce  a  reversal 
of  the  sentence  pronounced  upon  Mr.  Ireland. 

If  Mr.  Ireland  had  been  left  to  himself,  he  could  have 
created  no  trouble.  But  Dr.  Moore  and  Mr.  Feltus  take 
him  by  the  hand,  and  assist  him  in  his  measures  to  obtain  a 
reversal  of  the  sentence,  and  thus  to  disturb  the  peace,  and 
destroy  the  authority  of  the  Church.  They  countenance 
and  uphold  a  degraded  Clei-gyman  in  his  attempt  to  trample 
upon  the  ecclesiastical  aui  hori ty  of  the  diocese.  A  new  trial 
was  a  thing  impossible.  The  final  awai-d  had  been  given. 
And  any  attempt,  therefore,  to  force  the  Bishop  to  grant  a 
re.hearing  was  not  only  indecent  in  itself,  but  an  outrage 
upon  the  government  of  the  Church.  Now,  what  was  the 
conduct  of  Mr.  Jones  upon  this  occasion  ?  Did  he  yield  an 
open  and  manly  support  to  the  authority  of  the  Bishop  ? 
No— he  <^  was  very  cautious,  endeavourin^:  to  avoid  saying 
any  thing  which  might  in  any  ivise  commit  hinu''*  He  pro- 
mised to  be  neutral;  tliat  is,  he  promised  to  be  neutral 
when  he  saw  a  violent  attack  made  upon  the  authority  of 
the  Church ;  nothing  less  than  an  attempt,  by  threats  and 
clamour,  to  force  the  Bishop  into  a  measure  which  would 
have  been  uncanonical,  and  would  have  involved  the  com- 
plete prostraUon  of  ail  spiritual  discipline.    Was  this  a  case 

^  -  *  Appeal,  p,  33. 


li 


(     6     ) 

in  wbieli  to  be  neutral?  The  other  presenters  were  indeed 
mortified  and  astonished.  They  resolved  to  remonstrate  with 
Mr.  Jones.  For  this  purpose  an  interview  with  him  was 
sought,  and  in  tliat  interview  they  addressed  him  in  lan- 
guage suited  to  the  nature  of  the  case.  Nothing  was  said 
with  which  he  could  justly  find  fault.  I  did,  certainly,  ex- 
press to  Mr.  Jones  the  opinion,  that  he  ought  to  have  taken 
decided  ground,  and  to  have  opposed  explicitly  all  attempt 
to  bring  under  review  the  final  sentence  which  had  been 
regularly  and  canonically  pronounced.  But  this,  I  think,  I 
had  a  right  to  do.  The  truth  is,  Mr.  Jones  regarded  me  as 
a  young  man,  and  was  offended  that  I  did  not  approach  him 
in  the  forms  of  deference.  Dr.  Bowden  and  Mr.  Lyell  both 
testify  that  my  manner  was  unexceptionable. 

Mr.  Jones  puts  some  violent  language  into  my  mouth  re^ 
lative  to  Dr.  Moore  and  Mr.  Feltus.  I  do  not  recollect 
using  the  language  which  he  ascribes  to  me.  I  said  some- 
thing, probably,  which  he  has  exaggerated  so  as  to  make  it 
present  an  aspect  very  different  from  that  which  it  ought  to 
wear.  How  easy  is  it,  by  omitting  a  little,  adding  a  little, 
and  colouring  a  little,  totally  to  disfigure  the  plainest  and 
most  innocent  transaction  !^I  acknowledge  that,  in  the  in- 
terview in  question,  I  did  condemn  the  conduct  of  Mr, 
Feltus  towards  Mr.  Ireland.  It  is  a  fact  that  Mr.  Feltus 
treated  Mr.  Ireland,  after  his  degradation,  with  particular 
courtesy.  He  was  more  familiar  with  him,  I  have  reason 
to  believe,  than  he  had  ever  been.  I  know  that  the  thing 
excited  strong  disgust  in  the  minds  of  the  Clergy  of  the 
city.  And  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying,  that  the  parti- 
cular attention  paid  by  Mr.  Feltus  to  Mr.  Ireland  after  his 
degradation,  was  a  marked  contempt  of  the  authority  of  the 
Church.  But  i  do  not  i^ecollect  using  the  sort  of  language 
which  Mr.  Jones  imputes  to  me. 

Mr.  Jones  proceeds  to  relate  a  conversation  which  took 
place  between  him  and  myself  in  a  walk  from  Dr.  Bowden's 
house  to  the  corner  of  Liberty-street.  The  statement  which 
he  give3  does  not  present  the  conversation  in  question  in  its 
true  charactcr.-^I  recollect  vei-y  well  that  I  laboured  so  to 
express  myself,  as  to  do  justice  to  the  subject,  without 
wounding  the  feelings,  or  infringing  the  rightsof  Mr.  Jones. 
My  address  to  him  was  to  the  following  effect :— Mr.  Jones, 
you  will  acknowledge,  I  am  persuaded,  that  I  have  treated 
you,  since  my  settlement  in  the  city,  with  uniform  poDteness 
and  respect.  Mr.  Jones  replied  to  this  decidedly  in  the  af- 
firmative. I  proceeded--In  what  I  have  now  to  say,  it  is 
very  far  from  my  intention  to  attempt  to  dictate.    That 


Y 


I 


(  *  ) 

would  be  extremely  unbecoming  in  me.    But  it  is  always 
well  to  be  candid,  and  in  a  case  in  which  we  are  mutually 
interested,  I  have  a  right  to  express  to  you  my  opinion  and 
teelmgs.    I  do  thmk  it  unfriendly  in  you  to  exchange  with 
Ur.  Moore.     You  know  it  is  extremely  disagreeable  to  all 
your  colleagues.    He  indulges  himself  habituaUy  in  the 
grossest  abuse  of  us.    He  openly  declares  us  to  be  destitute 
of  all  zeal  and  of  all  piety.    In  this  affair  of  Mr.  Ireland, 
lie  has  acted  a  most  disorderly  part.    But  the  ground,  upon 
Which  I  prmeipally  rely,  is  his  constant  violation  of  the 
canons  of  the  Church.    To  introduce  him  into  our  pulpit, 
under  such  circumstances,  is  to  sanction  his  irregular'ty 
I  do  really  think,  therefore,  that  you  have  acted  improperiy 
in  exchanging  with  him,  and  I  must  say  that  a  continuance 
ot  the  practice  will  be  regarded  as  so  unfriendly,  that  it  wiU 
tend  to  impair  that  harmonious  intercourse  which  is  so  par- 
ticularly desirable  in  persons  standing  in  the  relation  in 
which  we  do  to  one  another.    Mr.  Jones  here  observed, 
that  this  could  be  viewed  in  no  other  light  than  that  of  an 
attempt  to  dictate  to  him.    By  no  means,  Mr.  Jones—I  dis- 
claim all  Idea  of  the  kind-The  subject  is  one  in  which  we 
are  mutually  mterested—My  only  object  is  to  express  t» 
you  my  views  and  feelings—You  wUl  be  governed,  of  course, 
by  your  own  sense  of  what  is  proper.    All  I  claim  is  the 
privilege  of  remonstrating  with  you  in  a  case  in  which  I 
really  think  you  treat  your  colleagues  ill ;  and  whenever  I 
do  any  thing  which  may  appear  to  you  incorrect,  I  beg  you 
to  teU  me  of  it  with  the  utmost  freedom.    Mr.  Jones  still 
thought  I  was  dictating  to  him,  and  we  parted. 

Mr.  Jones  proceeds  to  state  that,  on  the  very  next  day 
alter  that  upon  which  we  held  the  conversation  in  question, 
he  waited  upon  Dr.  Moore,  and  declared  to  him  lus  deter- 
mmation  to  break  off  all  oifieial  intercourse  with  him  until 
he  should  conform  to  the  rules  and  canons  of  the  Church  * 
Here  is  a  practical  comment  upon  tiie  principle  which  I  had 
iaid  down.  Mr.  Jones  pursues  the  very  course  which  I  had 
complained  of  him  for  not  pursuing.  The  position,  which  I 
iiad  taken,  was  so  just  and  reasonable,  that  he  could  not  but 
see  and  feel  the  propriety  of  yielding  to  it.  Surely,  then, 
he  ought  not  to  have  found  fault  with  me.    He  tells  Dr! 

^M?r  1  V  ^^  "*'"  I""'^  ""  intercourse  with  him  until  he 
jields  obedience  to  the  laws  of  the  Church.    This  part  he 

!i.n  1  Tu  "f  <='j/™«»  tl»c  beginning.    And  the  correct 
step  which  he  finally  took  appears  to  have  been,  in  a  great 

*  Appeal,  p.  39. 


I 


^ 


C   «   ) 

incasui'e.  tlie  result  of  that  very  conversation  ^^ith  me  of 
nrhich  lie  has  so  Utterly  complained.* 

As  far,  therefore,  as  any  salutary  change  may  have  taken 
place  in  the  practice  of  Dr.  Moore,  it  has  heen  produced 
by  that  course  of  conduct  which  Mr.  Jones  seems  disposed 
to  represent  as  the  cause  of  his  irregularity.  The  fact  is, 
every  thing  v/as  done,  in  a  mild  way,  to  induce  Dr.  Moore 
to  act  a  coiTcct  and  regular  part.  Forbearance  was  carried 
to  the  utmost  extent.  It  was  not  until  he  had  trampled 
upon  the  most  common  rules  of  propriety,  that  a  decided 
stand  was  made  against  him.  And  whatever  improvement 
may  have  taken  place  in  his  conduct,  be  it  repeated,  is  the 
result  of  that  frank  and  manly  policy  which  Mr.  Jones  is 
so  solicitous  to  lead  his  readers  to  condemn.f 

2.  Mr.  Jones  charges  us  with  alienating  from  him  the 
mind.^  of  the  young  men  who  have  been,  at  different  times, 
candidates  for  the  ministry .  This  unfounded  accusation  fur- 
nishes, in  my  jud;^ment,  a  complete  illustration  of  the  temper 
of  him  who  has  preferred  it.  He  evidently  argues  thus — 
The  young  men,  if  left  to  take  an  unembarrassed  course, 
would  apply  to  me,  on  all  occasions,  for  instruction  and 
advice.  But  they  resort  to  others  more  than  to  me.  This 
is  the  result  of  intrigue.  Extraordinary  industry  has  been 
employed  to  uleniate  the  young  men  from  me,  and  to  put 
them  out  of  that  course,  which,  left  to  themselves,  they 
would  certainly  have  taken.  *  It  is  pait  of  the  same  base 
system  of  jealousy  which  has  long  been  directed  against 
me. 

When  a  man  attaches  an  immoderate  importance  to  him- 
self, it  is  very  difficult,  indeed,  for  those  with  whom  he 
constantly  acts  to  live  in  peace  with  him.  He  watches  all 
their  conduct  with  a  scrutinizing  eye;  he  never  thinks 
himself  treated  with  sufficient  respect ;  he  exacts  a  scru- 
pulous attention  to  the  minutest  forms ;  and  every  where 
lie  is  ready  to  see  plots  and  conspiracies  to  rob  him  of  his 
influence^  and  to  blast  his  fame.    It  is,  perhaps,  his  most 

•  Mr.  Han-is,  1  well  recollect,  told  me  that  he  had  declared  to  Mr.  Jones  that 
he  should  have  no  intercourse  with  Dr.  Moore  while  his  conduct  was  irregular; 
and  further,  that  he  could  have  no  intercourse  with  Mr.  Jones  himself  if  he  ex- 
changed with,  and  thereby  patronized  Dr.  Moore  This  is  much  more  pointed 
laingUHge  than  I  had  ever  addressed  to  Mr.  Jones.  It  is  certainly  strange,  while 
my  conduct  was  sanctioned  by  that  of  Mr.  Harris,  and  by  the  altered  practice  of 
Mr.  Jones  himself,  that  he  should  still  make  it  a  sulyect  of  accusation. 

It  appears  from  Mr.  Jones's  pamphlet  that  Mr.  Harris  discontinued,  at  one 
time,  ail  official  intercourse  with  Dr.  Moore.    Appeal,  p.  46. 

f  I  must  not  leave  this  part  of  the  subject  without  doing  justice  to  Mr.  Lyell. 
He  did  not  ilv,  as  Mr.  Jones  tells  us,  into  a  violent  passion.  When  Mr.  Jones 
called  in  question  the  rejjularity  of  his  conduct  as  a  clergyman,  he  spoke  with 
emphasis  and  feeling;  hut  not  witb  angcT, 


1^) 


Itriking  characteristic,  constantly  to  suspect  in  others  the 
existence  of  the  very  passions  which  rule  his  own  breast. 
But  now  let  the  plain  fact  appear.   Let  this  subject  be  placed 
in  the  undisguised  light  of  truth.     Dr.  Hobart,  so  far  from 
endeavouring  to  prejudice  the  young  men  against  Mr.  Jones> 
spoke,  of  him,  invariably,  in  terms  of  friendship  and  re- 
spect.   He  even  advised  them  to  visit  lum,  and  court  his 
aoquaintance.     To  the  young  men  who  studied,  with  me,  I 
said  not  a  word  about  Mr.  Jones  until  they  had  completed 
their  course  of  theological  instruction.    Then^  indeed,  I 
did  make  some  remarks  to  them  upon  the  system  of  con- 
duct ^hich  Mr;  Jones  was  pursuing;   but  his  behaviour 
at  that  time  was  a  subject  of  very  general  conversation. 
Hie  young  men,  however,  have  given  their  statements  upon 
this  subject*    And  what  a  view  d^  these  statements  present ! 
From  the  year  1806  Mr.  Jones  h^s  been  indulging  the  ut- 
most bitterness  of  feeling  toward  Dr.  Hobart*    He  has  not 
restrained  himself  even  in  those  public  situations  in  which 
^ileflce  was  imposed  upon  hiin  by  every  principle  which  can 
be  supposed  to  influence  a  delicate  and  honourable  mind. 
But  I  shall  not  occupy  the  time  of  the  reader  in  comment- 
ing^^pon  this  subject.    I  leave  the  certificates  to  speak  for 
themselves ;  satisfied  that  they  will  present  to  every  person 
of  the  leasj;  discernment,  a  clear  view  of  the  origin  and 
progress  of  those  feelings  ^nd  tempers  which  have  led  to 
the  present  unhappy  state  of  tliings.f 

3.  Mr.  Jones  charges  me  with  very  shameful  conduct  to 
him  ill  St.  John's  Church,  immediately  after  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  communion  there.  The  account  which  he 
gives  does  by  no  means  present  the  true  state  of  the  fact. 
Some  time  after  the. affair  in  question,  Mr.  Harris  men- 
tioned to  me,  in  conversation,  that  Mr.  Jones  complained  of 
my  behaviour  to  him  at  the  communion.  He  recited  to  me 
what  Mr.  Jones  had  said  to  him.  I  immediately  assured 
Mr.  Harris  that  the  statement  which  he  had  received  from 
Mr.  Jones  was^  incorrect.  I  gave  him  an  account  of  the 
inatter,  according  to  my  distinct  and  full  recollection,  and 
begged  him  to  present  the  account,  in  my  name,  to  Mr. 
Jones,  and  to  do  it  in  the  most  polite  and  respectful  terms; 
hot  using  a  single  woiil  that  could  in  the  slightest  degree 
w  ound  his  feelings.  Mr.  Harris  shortly  after  brought  to 
me  from  Mr.  Jones  the  following  message  :—«*  Jjft/oM  say 

*  See  their  certificates  in  tlie  preceding  statement  of  Dr.  Hobart. 

t  The  young  men  were  dissatisfied,  also,  with  the  stately  trWtment  which  ther 
received  from  Mr.  Jone%  He  required  a  deference  which  e\c«wieU  all  therr 
Ideas  ot  what  was  proper    §uch  ii  tbe  .account  they  gire. 


> 


(    io   ) 

it 

SO9  y(ni  say  what  is  not  tnuP  Mr.  Jones  sent  me  word, 
not  that  I  was  under  a  mistake,  but  that  I  was  guilty  of  an 
absolute  falsehood.  Even  this,  I  am  almost  ashamed  to 
record  it,  I  passed  over  for  the  sake  of  peace.  I  will  not 
omit  to  mention  that,  upon  being  informed  by  Mr.  Harris  of 
the  statement  which  he  had  received  from  Mr.  Jones,  I  ex- 
claimed—This is  utterly  false.  But  I  desired  Mr.  Harris 
to  say  nothing  of  that,  and  to  use  no  language  in  conveying 
my  statement  to  Mr.  Jones  that  should  have  the  slightest 
tendency  to  produce  an  unpleasant  effect  upon  his  mind. 

It  is  most  painful  to  me  to  be  under  the  neeessity  of 
bringing  into  view  the  relative  conduct  of  Mr.  Jones  and*, 
myself  upon  meeting  each  other  at  the  sacred  table.  But 
^/ir.  Jones  has  presented  so  incorrect  a  view  of  the  matter^ 
and  one  so  calculated  to  do  me  injury,  that  I  am  con- 
strained to  speak  in  my  own  defence.  I  will,  therefore,  re- 
late what  passed  between  Mr.  Jones  and  myself  at  the 
communion  in  St.  John's  Church.  And  I  will  preface  it  by 
observing,  that  my  recollection  of  the  circumstances  of  the 
case  is  distinct  and  clear. 

When  we  rose  from  the  communion  table,  I  took  the 
bread  which  was  left,  handed  it  first  to  the  Bishop,  then  to 
a  Clergy  man  who  was  near  me,  and  then  turned  and  ad- 
vanced with  it  four  or  five  paces  to  Mr.  Jones,  presented  it 
to  him,  and  bowed.  He  advanced  two  or  three  paces  to 
i^eceive  it,  and  bowed  at  the  same  time  with  me.  He  did 
not  open  his  mouth.  He  dM  not  ofter  me  his  hand.  At 
least,  if  he  did,  it  wholly  escaped  my  view.  Indeed,  he 
says  that  he  "  sdood  ready  to  offer  me  his  hand."* 

As  to  the  coldness  of  my  manner  to  Mr.  Jones,  I  have 
to  i-emark  that  I  never  refused  him  my  hand,  and  that  if  he 
sometimes  first  extended  his  hand  to  me,  I  sometimes  first 
extended  mine  to  him.  As  to  the  alleged  alteration  of  my 
W)nduct  upon  his  return  from  an  excursion  to  the  country, 
it  was  surely  natural  to  be  a  little  more  particular  in  my 
address  to  him  after  a  considei*able  absence.  Mr.  Jones 
may  rest  assured  that  the  solution  which  he  attempts  to 
give  is  a  fiction  of  his  own  imagination.! 

And  now  let  impartial  persons  ju(le;c  how  difficult  it  is  to 
live  with  Mr.  Jones  in  peace.  He  is  perpetually  imagining 
himself  ill  treated;  and  when  he  supposes  an  affront  to  be 


•  Appeal,  p.  55. 

f  "  !t  was  out  of  my  pover  to  account  for  this  change  of  conduct.  The  canse 
may  perhaps  he  devised  from  what  I  have  since  learnt,  that  his  conduct  to  me 
had  begun  to  be  talked  of,  and  the  report  had  got  to  Dr.  Hobart'5  ears;  and  that 
ihs  Poctor  had  spoken  lo  him  on  the  subject.'*    Appeal,  p.  56. 


> 


^^' 


Ar* 


#»    I   w 


.  (  li  ) 

intendedy  instead  of  speaking  to  the  individual,  and  thus 
obtaining  an  explanation,  he  puts  the  thing  in  his  journal, 
and  talks  of  it  through  the  city ;  thus  doing  whatever  h« 
can  to  destroy  the  reputation  of  his  colleagues,  and  to  dis- 
turb the  harmony  of  the  Church. 

It  is  really  vei-y  unpleasant  to  be  obliged  to  descend  to 
such  detail ;  but,  disagreeable  as  the  task  may  be,  it  seems 
necessary  to  perform  it. 

4.  Mr.  Jones  finds  great  fault  with  me  for  the  part  which  I 
acted  in  the  business  of  his  removal  from  his  office  of  mem- 
ber of  the  standing  committee. 

Can  it  be  truly  said,  that  Mr.  Jones,  in  this  case,  was 
treated  unjustly  ? 

Without  dwelling  on  the  right  of  the  Convention  to  dis- 
pose of  the  offices  within  its  gift  as  it  may  think  most  ad- 
viseable,  I  would  simply  observe,  that  Mr.  Jones  had  pre- 
liously  acted  a  part  which  took  from  him  all  title  to  com- 
plain. In  the  year  1808  he  formed  a  plan  to  expel  Dr.  Ho- 
bart  from  office,  and  went  as  far  in  the  attempt  to  execute 
it  as  the  dictates  of  prudence  would  permit. 

How  does  this  appear  ?  1st.  Mr.  Jones,  according  to  liis 
own  statement,  said  to  Mr.  Prentis,  that  thoughts  were 
entertained  of  turning  Dr.  Hobart  out  of  the  office  of  Se- 
leretary  to  the  Convention.*  And  Mr.  Prentis  has  declared 
to  me,  that  Mr.  Jones  was  occupied,  for  the  space  of  two 
hours,  in  painting  Dr.  Hobart  in  the  blackest  colours.f 

But  Mr.  Jones  declares  that  he  did  not  ask  Mr.  Prentis 
to  give  his  vote  against  Dr.  Hobart.  That,  surely,  was  not 
necessary.  It  was  quite  sufficient  to  represent  Dr.  Hobart 
as  a  very  unworthy  man,  and  to  mention  the  thoughts  which 
were  entertained  of  removing  him  from  office.  Thus  far, 
even  according  to  his  own  statement,  Mr.  Jones  undoubtedly 
went.:|: 

.  2.  Dr.  Moore  repeatedly  invited  Mr.  Lyell  to  unite  in  the 
plan  of  expelling  Dr.  Hobart  from  office.  He  enumerated 
to  Mr.  Lyell  the  persons  whose  votes  were  secured,  Mr. 
Jones  was  particularly  spoken  of  as  one  who  would  be  zeal- 
ous in  the  business. 


*  Appeal,  p.  27. 

t  Mr.  Prentis,  at  this  time,  was  very  little  acquainted  with  Dr.  Hohart.  And 
when  Mr.  Jones  had  enumerated  the  charges  against  Dr.  H.  Mr.  Prentis  replied 
conditionally — If  these  things  are  so.  Dr.  H.  has  acted  very  improperly.  But  Mr. 
.lones  has  made  Mr.  Prentis  speak  absolutelif  and  unconditiQ7iaUy,—T\\^v&^i\w 
,is  requested  to  turn  to  the  certificate  of  Mr.  Prentis. 

%  Appeal,  p.  %7. 


i-       '« 


\  <% 


f 


w 


' 


(     12     ) 

<*  I  hereby  certify,  that  from  several  conversations  held 
with  the  Rev.  Dr.  Moore,  in  the  summer  of  1808,  I  had 
every  reason  to  believe  that  an  attempt  would  be  made,  at 
the  ensuing  Convention,  to  remove  Dr.  Hobart  from  office, 
and  that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jones  would  aid  in  the  business.  And 
1  do  further  certify,  that  I  understood  Dr.  Moore  in  these 
conversations,  as  wishing  to  engage  my  aid  also. 

"  THO.  LYELL.'' 

3.  Dr.  Moore,  in  complaining  to  the  Bishop,  shortly  before 
the  meeting  of  the  Convention  of  1808,  of  the  conduct  of 
Dr.  Hobart,  said  with  emphasis : — We  will  take  measures 
to  keep  him  back. 

4.  Dr.  Moore,  Mr.  Jones,  and  one  or  two  others,  did  ac- 
tuaUy  vote  against  Dr.  Jf  obart.  And  they  repeated  this  un- 
friendly conduct  at  the  Convention  of  the  ensuing  year. 
This  they  admit. 

5.  Mr.  Jones,  in  the  month  of  May  last,  did  explicitly  ac- 
knowledge to  Mr.  Prentis  and  Mr.  Read,  that  a  plan  was 
in  agitation,  in  the  year  1808,  to  remove  Dr.  Hobart  from 
office.* 

Thus  it  appears,  that  a  plan  was  formed  by  Mr.  Jones^ 
so  long  ago  as  the  summer  of  1808,  to  expel  Dr.  Hobart 
from  office,  and  that  he  actually  took  measures  for  the 
execution  of  the  plan.  Mr.  Jones  tells  us  he  sollicited  no 
votes.  He  soon  discovered  that  the  thing  was  impractica- 
ble. Dr.  Hobart's  continuance  in  office  is  to  be  ascnbed  to 
the  esteem  of  the  Clerg;^  and  Laity  of  the  Convention ;  not 
to  the  forbearance  of  Mr.  Joncs.f 

The  question  of  justice,  then,  is  settled.  Surely  Mr. 
Jones  can  have  no  right  to  complain  of  his  own  removal 
from  office,  when  he  had  laboured,  during  two  successive 
years,  to  effect  the  removal  of  Dr.  Hobart. 

We  did  conscientiously  think  it  our  duty  to  let  Mr.  Jones 
sec  that  his  conduct  was  regarded  as  very  incorrect.  We 
did  believe  that  the  Convention  were  bound  to  show  him 
that  they  would  frown  upon  all  attempts  to  raise  up  parties 
in  the  Church,  and  to  disturb  its  peace. 

The  hostile  sentiments  of  Mr.  Jones  towards  Dr.  Hobart 
were  known  to  many  of  the  clergy.  Their  attention  was 
called  to  the  subject  of  his  removal  from  office,  and  they 

*  A'ide  Air.  Read's  certificate. 

7  Yet  all  this  unfriendly,  and,  indeed,  violent  conduct,  we  passed  over,  and  con- 
tinued to  treat  Mr.  Jones  with  respect  and  kindness.  The  conduct  in  question 
took  pbcein  the  fall  of  1808  and  1809.  And  Mr.  Jones  acknowledges  that  ray 
Ijehaviour  to  him,  down  to  Mardi,  1810,  -was  unexceptionable.  \ide  Appeal, 
p.  .?7.  -. 


^\lf^ 


C  13  ) 

coi^ally  approved  the  measure^Mr.  Jones  i^ceived  not 
more  than  four  or  five  clerical  votes.  This  can  be  referred 
to  no  other  cause  than  a  settled  conviction,  in  the  minds  of 
the  clergy,  of  the  extreme  impropriety  of  his  conduct. 

Mr.  Jones  states  the  reasons  which  were  given,  at  the 
time,  in  .justification  of  his  removal  from  office—But  here 
he  IS  wholly  in  an  error.  His  conduct,  relative  to  the  Me- 
chanic's  Bank,  I  confess,  had  weight  with  me.  But  the 
other  reasons,  which  he  mentions,  did  not  operate  at  all 
In  lact,  his  behaviour,  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Blackburn,  1  have 
more  than  once  spoken  of  in  terms  of  approbation.  Tlie 
propriety  of  his  removal  was  placed  on  the  broad  around 
ot  his  general  character  and  conduct. 

It  has  been  made  to  appear,  I  think,  that  we  did  not  treat 
Mr.  Jones  unjustly  in  displacing  him  from  office.  Surely 
he  can  have  no  right  to  find  fault.  The  measure  which  he 
attempted  to  mete  to  others,  has  been  meted  to  him.  It  is 
quite  absurd,  therefore,  in  him  to  complahi. 

An  appeal  was  openly  and  candidly  made  to  the  judgment 
ot  the  clergy  of  the  diocese,  and  that  appeal  met  with  a  fa. 
Vourable  reception. 

The  propriety  of  the  removal  of  Mr.  Jones  rests  upon 
the  simple  principle,  that,  when  a  man  displays  a  turbulent 
temper  in  the  Church,  and  endeavours  to  raise  up  parties  in 
it,  and  to  destroy  its  peace,  it  becomes  necessary  to  deal 
wiOi  him  in  a  plain  and  decided  way.  Such  was  the  almost 
unanimous  opinion  of  the  clergy  who  may  be  supposed  to  be 
best  acquainted  with  the  disposition  and  views  of  a  member 
01  tlieir  own  body. 

6.  I  proceed  to  notice  the  charge,  which  Mr.  Jones  brings 
agamst  me,  of  rude  and  insulting  behaviour  to  Dr.  Beach. 
'I  his  charge  has  done  me  great  injury.  I  know  that  my 
supposed  conduct  to  Dr.  Beach  has  been  a  subject  of  most 
severe  remark.  It  is  very  important  to  me  that  this  matter 
should  be  placed  in  a  just  light.  I  will  give  a  candid  state- 
ment of  the  facts. 

The  representation  of  Mr.  Jones  is  inaccurate  in  all  its 
parts.  In  the  first  place,  I  did  not  wait  upon  Dr.  Beach  for 
the  purpose  of  conversing  with  him  on  the  subject  of  the 
^piscopal  office.  Mr.  Kemper  was  to  have  assisted  me  in 
the  exercises  of  the  approaching  Sunday.  Dr.  Beach  wished 
mr.  Kemper  to  be  with  him,  and  was  anxious  that  he  should 
make  some  arrangement  with  me,  by  which  the  object  might 
be  eftected.  Mr.  Kemper  waited  upon  me  for  the  purpose. 
1  told  him  I  would  call  upon  Dr.  Beach,  and  endeavour  to 
settle  the  thmg  m  some  way  tliat  would  be  agreeable  to  him. 


■0* 


i  I 


I  ' 


1 1 


(      1*      ) 

I  might  hav^  sent  word  to  Dr.  Beaeh  by  Mf.  Kcm^p.  I 
really  waited  upon  him  as  the  most  respectful  way  of  doing 
the  business.  Thus  were  Dr.  Beach  and  myself  brought 
together.  I  did  not  wait  upon  him  to  addi^ss  him  upon  the 
concerns  of  the  Church,  but  simply  to  inform  him  that  an 
arrangement  could  be  made  that  would  give  him  ease  ou 
Sunday.  And  I  should  not  have  opened  my  lips  to  him  upon 
any  other  point,  but  for  the  deliberate  introduction  of  the 
subject  of  the  approaching  election  of  a  Bishop  by  himself. 
After  an  arrangement  was  made  for  his  accommodation  on 
Sunday,  he  thus  addressed  me:— We  are  acting  precipi- 
tately.  This  measure  of  calling  a  Convention  is  ill  judged. 
We  are  going  too  fast.  I  immediately  replied,  that  I  was 
sorry  to  hear  him  say  so ;  that  the  Bishop  had  considered 
the  subject  maturely,  and  had  asked  the  opinion  of  some  of 
the  most  experienced  and  judicious  members  both  of  the 
clergy  and  laity.  I  then  enumerated  to  Dr.  Beach  the  rea- 
sons that  might  be  urged  for  the  measure;  dwelling  particu- 
larly upon  the  imminent  danger  we  were  in  of  losing  the 
episcopal  succession.  He  did  not  reply  to  my  arguments, 
but  said— Well,  well,  there  does  seem  to  be  reason  for  thQ 
measure.  He  went  on— I  wish  to  be  understood;  I  did 
think  of  declining  the  office  of  Bishop;  but  things  are 
changed ;  and  if  I  am  elected  Bishop,  I  will  serve.  I  re- 
plied. Dr.  Beach,  you  have  introduced  this  subject  to  me, 
and  if  I  converse  with  you,  I  must  state  to  you  my  candid 
opinion.  1  cannot  talk  with  you  unless  I  say  exactly  what  I 
conscientiously  think.  You  will  receive  whatever  I  say,  as 
it  is  intended,  with  perfect  respect.  Dr.  Beach  immediately 
answered.  Oh,  certainly,  that  is  what  I  want— I  wish  you 
to  state  your  opinion  candidly. 

1  am  very  sorr> ,  then.  Dr.  Beach,  that  you  have  taken 
such  ground.  It  is  generally  understood  through  the  city, 
and  through  the  diocese,  that  you  decline  all  idea  of  being 
Bishop.  1  have  said  so  to  several  persons.  My  authorities 
have  been  Mr.  Lyell  and  Dr.  fiowden.  He  replied— They 
have  misrepresented  me — I  declined  conditionally — I  said, 
that  if  I  should  be  made  Rector  of  Trinity  Church,  the  du- 
ties of  that  office  would  occupy  me,  and  I  should  not  be  able 
to  perform  the  duties  of  Bishop ;  but  as  there  is  no  prospect 
of  my  being  made  Rector  very  soon,  the  condition  has  failed, 
and  I  will  sei^e  in  the  Episcopal  office  if  I  am  elected.  I 
then  observed  to  Dr.  Beach,  that  his  duties  as  Assistant 
Rector,  or  even  as  Assistant  Minister,  were,  nearly,  if  not 
quite,  as  arduous  as  would  be  Ids  duties  if  he  should  be  ap- 
pointed to  the  office  of  Rector ;  and  that,  therefore,  the  idea 


t'^ 


(     4S     ) 

of  being  Bishop  was  inconsistent  with  the  very  fact  whiiili 
he  had  stated,  that  the  duties  of  the  two  offices  of  Rector 
and  Bishop  were  more  than  he  could  perform.  He  made 
light  of  this,  and  said,  that  he  would  serve  as  Bishop  if 
elected.  Then,  Dr.  Beaeh,  you  appear  to  me  to  take 
the  ground  that  you  must  absolutely  be  either  Rector  or 
Bishop.  No,  he  rejoined,  I  take  no  ground  whatever. 
The  Convention  will  do  as  they  please.  I  am  in  their  hands. 
If  tho:^elect  me,  I  will  serve.  I  will  not  be  disgraced  in 
my  old  age.  How  can  I  go  up  to  the  altar  with  a  candidate 
for  orders,  and  say  to  a  young  man,  Bee.  FatJier  in  God  /* 
But,  Dr.  Beach,  if  you  are  made  Rector  of  Trinity  Church, 
you  will  have  to  address  the  Bishop  in  that  way  whenever 
you  present  to  him  a  candidate  for  orders.— lYes,  he  said ; 
but  the  case  will  be  very  diffierent.— I  really.  Sir,  cannot 
see  any  difference.  I  proceeded — Dr.  Beach,  I  regret  ex- 
tremely that  you  are  about  to  take  such  ground.  I  am  per- 
suaded it  will  give  a  gi*eat  deal  of  trouble  to  you  and  to  the 
Church.  I  have  heard  several  of  the  oldest  Clergymen  in 
the  State  express  it  as  their  deliberate  opinion,  that  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  Church  imperiously  require  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  young  and  active  man  to  the  office  of  Bishop.  I 
do  not  believe  the  Convention  will  unite  in  any  old  man. 
It  would  be  extremely  disagreeable  to  you  to  come  into  the 
Episcopal  office  after  a  strong  opposition.  It  would  be  still 
more  disagreeable  to  you  to  fail.  And  if  the  Convention 
should  elect  you.  Dr.  Beach,  it  will  be,  not  because  they 
will  think  the  thing  correct  in  itself,  but  because  they  will 
not  be  able  to  prevail  upon  themselves  to  wound  'your  feel- 
ings. 

Tliis  last  is  the  remark  which  has  been  so  misrepresented, 
and  employed  so  much  to  my  disadvantage. 

Dr.  Beach  did  not  appear  offended  at  the  time.  On  the 
contrary,  he  observed,  as  I  was  taldng  my  leave.  Well, 
we  cannot  agree  in  opinion ;  but  there  must  be  no  state  of 
unfriendliness  between  us,  and  we  had  better  say  nothing  of 
what  has  passed.  To  this  I  cordiaUy  assented.  But  I  soon 
discovered  that  I  was  accused,  by  many  persons,  of  having 
treated  Dr.  Beach  most  unworthily  ;f  and  Mr.  Jones  holds 
me  up  to  the  community  as  having  used  language  to  him 

*  It  ought  to  be  recollected,  that  Timothy,  the  fii-st  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  was 
a  young  raan;  the  apostle  Paul  expressly  directing  hira  to  let  no  one  despise  him 
on  account  of  his  youth.  1  Tim.  iv.  12.  St.  Cyprian,  the  celebrated  Bisliop  of 
Carthage,  was  one  of  the  youngest  clergymen  in  that  diocese. 

t  There  was  no  person  present  dunng  the  whole  conversation  between  Ur. 
Beach  and  mvself. 


^ 


I 


!} 


(     16     ) 

%liieli  would  justly  subject  me  to  very  severe  censure*  -^  If 
they  do  vote  for  you,  it  will  be  out  of  pity,  not  out  of  re- 
spect," I  solemnly  declare  that  I  used  no  such  language  ; 
that  I  intended  to  present  no  such  idea.  On  the  contrary,  the 
idea  which  I  intended  to  present  to  Dr.  Beach  was,  simply, 
that  the  Convention,  if  tliey  should  elect  him  Bishop,  would 
saei'ifice  their  judgment  of  what  was  in  itself  proper  to  their 
i*espect  for  him. 

What  was  I  to  do  ?  Dr.  Beach  introduced  tlie  subject  ttf 
me.  He  ciompelled  me  to  speak.  I  declared  to  him  tliat  it 
would  be  impossible  for  me  to  converse  with  him  unless  he 
indulged  me  in  the  most  candid  expression  of  my  opinions. 
Anil  I  did  express  my  opinions,  as  I  humbly  apprehend^  at 
once  honestly  and  decorously.  ■   •  '- 

I  cannot  but  think  that  I  have  suflered  most  unjust  anil 
cruel  treatment  in  relation  to  this  business.  r  . 

.    6.  It  will  be  proper  to  pay  some  attention  to  the  charge 

r  which  Mi*.  Jones  brings  against  me,  of  treating  Dr.  Mooi'e> 
upon  his  settlement  in  the  city,  unkindly  and  rudely. 
.   I  will  state  my  ti'catment  of  Dr.  Moore,  and  the  reasons 
of  it. 
Whenever  I  have  been  in  company  with  Dr.  Moore^  t 

>  have  conformed,  in  my  intercourse  with  him,  to  all  the 
rules  of  ^ivility  Avhich  are  applicable  to  our  relative  situa- 
tion.   It  has  been  my  earnest  wish  to  be  able  to«steem  him, 
.  and  to  place  confidence  in  him.    And,  for  tliis  purpose,  I 
certainly  did  pay  him,  as  he  will  do  me  .the  justice  to  ac- 

}  knowledge,  those  attentions  whicli,  as  a  general  rule,  are 
due  from  one  clergyman  to  another,  and  whick  might  have 
pi'cpared  the  way  for  a  cordial  intercowse  between  us. 
M  hen  he  visited  the  city  of  New-Yoi'k,  I  wsiitcd  upon  him, 
and  invited  him  to  dine  with  me.  And  I  well  recollect,  on 
one  occasion,  being  informed  by  Mr-  I^yell.  that  Dr.  Mooi*c 
had  expressed  himself  particularly  satisiicd  with  the  treats 
laent  which  he  had  received  from  me.  And  if  Dr.  Moore^ 
upon  his  settlement  in  this  city,  had  acted  a  correct  and 
regular  part,  he  would  have  met  with  nothing,  at  tlie  handsr 

*  of  his  bivthreu,  but  coiilialitv  and  kindness. 

But  he  did  not  so  act.  On  the  contrary,  he  had  been  in! 
the  city  but  a  little  tiuie,  before  he  began  to  violate  the 
rules  and  oi*ders  of  tlie  Church.  And  here  let  it  be  recol- 
lected that  he  persevered  in  his  irregularity,  according  to 
the  statement  of  Mr.  Jones  himself,  until  Dr.  Beach  deli- 
berately proposed  that  the  clergy  of  Trinity  Church  should 
have  nothing  to  do  >vith  him,  and  until  JMr.  Harris  and  Mr. 


(  *9  ) 

Jones  took  the  ground  expressly  that  they  would  not  ex- 
change with  him.*  The  conduct  of  Dr.  Moore  himself, 
therefore,  imposed  upon  me  the  painful  necessity  of  treat- 
ing him  with  coolness.  At  the  same  time,  I  can  most  truly 
say,  and  I  am  sure  Dr.  Moore  will  be  so  just  as  not  to 
contradict  me,  that  I  never  violated,  in  my  intercourse 
with  him,  a  single  rule  of  decorum. 

It  was  a  solemn  conviction  of  duty,  as  far  as  I  know  my 
own  heart,  that  dictated  the  conduct  which  I  adopted  to- 
ward Dr.  Moore. 

l£  Dr.  Moore  had  acted  a  correct  and  regular  part,  no 
person  would  have  been  more  forward,  or  more  happy  than 
myself,  in  treating  him  with  all  the  respect  due  to  his  age 
aiMl  profession. 

7.  Mr.  Jones  presents  a  strong  charge  against  some  indi- 
viduals of  the  city  of  New-York,  among  whom  he  would 
appear  to  include  me,  of  most  criminal  conduct  in  reference 
to  the  appointment  of  an  Assistant  Bishop  for  the  diocese  of 
Connecticut  He  describes  us  as  a  set  of  shameful  in 
triguers,  who  make  no  scruple  of  violating  the  plainest 
rules  of  propriety,  and  of  destroying  the  peace  of  the 
Church,  for  the  base  purpose  of  accomplishing  our  own 
selfish  views.  This  is  a  ver,^  serious  charge,  and  ough  t  to 
be  supported  by  very  satisfactory  proof.  But  Mr.  Jones 
produces  no  proof,  and  has  none  to  produce.  He  tells  his 
readers  that  a  resolution  was  formed  to  remove  all  obstacles 
from  the  ambitious  path  of  Dr.  Hobart ;  that  it  was  deter-^ 
mined,  as  a  part  of  the  plan,  to  create  an  Assistant  Bishop 
for  the  diocese  of  Connecticut,  in  order  to  make  provision 
for  a  man  to  whom  the  attention  of  tins  State  might  other- 
wise have  been  directed ;  and  that  the  most  irregular,  dis« 
orderly,  and  base  means  were  employed  to  secure  the  suc- 
cess of  the  iniquitous  scheme. 

Mr.  Jones,  in  all  this,  is  certainly  not  relating  facts.  He 
18  only  viewing  things  through  the  medium  of  that  suspici- 
ous temper,  to  which,  in  the  whole  of  this  business,  he  has 
been,  unhappily,  so  prone. 

The  men,  upon  whom  Mr.  Jones  charges  the  whole 
leheme  of  providing  an  Assistant  Bishop  for  the  diocese  of 
ConnectiQut,  had,  literaUy,  nothing  to  do  with  it.  Dr.  Bow- 
den,  upon  receiving  a  letter  from  a  respectable  Clergyman 
of  Connecticut,  on  the  subject  in  question,  did  me  the 
honour  to  ask  my  opinion.     Such  was  the  amoudt  of  my 

*  Appeal,  p.  30,  4li. 
C 


i^ 


h 


w  —^ 


^ 


I 


(     f8     ) 

paiticipalion.     But  the  certificate  of  Dr.  Bowden  will  place 
Ifrt  subject  in  its  true  point  of  light.* 

Aiid  here  an  act  of  justice  is  due  to  Dr.  Hobart,  which, 
I  should  consider  myself  very  reprehensible,  if  I  failed  to 

perform. 

Mr.  Jones  describes  this  gentleman  as  gOTcrned  by  an 
inordinate  ambition,  as  fixing  iiis  eye  steadily  on  the  Epis- 
copal office,  and  as  directing  an  incessant  attention  to  the 
accomplishment  of  his  views  upon  it.  The  whole  of  this  I 
personally  know  to  be  entirely  incorrect.  When  Bishop 
Moore  was  taken  ill,  the  friends  of  the  Church  very  na- 
turally turned  their  attention  to  the  interesting  subject  of  a 
successor  to  him  in  the  Episcopal  office^  Dr.  Hobart  had 
long  enjoyed  the  character  of  a  Clergyman  of  great  zeal, 
talents,  and  piety.  It  was  well  known  that  he  possessed, 
in  an  eminent  degree,  the  affection  both  of  the  Clergy  and 
Laity  of  the  Church  in  this  diocese.  And  the  opinion  was 
very  strongly  entertained  by  many,  that  he  was  the  most 
suitable  person  to  be  appointed  to  the  impoHant  office  which 
he  now  holds.  This  opinion  was  made  known  to  him  by 
his  friends.  And  it  is  a  fact,  that  Dr.  Hobart  was  with 
great  difficulty  prevailed  upon  to  consent  to  his  name  being 
at  all  mentioned.  Ah !  this  was  all  a  feint,  the  censorious 
will  siiy.  But  I  know  better.  I  have  been  acquainted  with 
Dr.  Hobart  for  the  long  period  of  seventeen  years.  I  have 
seen  him  in  a  great  variety  of  situations.  I  think  I  under- 
stand his  character.  The  reluctance  which  he  expressed 
was  sincere.  He  had  formed  very  different  plans  of  life, 
arid  nothing  but  an  imperious  sense  of  duty  could  have  in- 
duced him  to  yield  to  the  wishes  of  his  friends.  And  I  do 
Solemnly  declare,  that  the  source  of  my  greatest  anxiety, 
during  the  whole  of  the  interesting  scene  through  which  we 
have  lately  passed,  was  the  fear  that  Dr.  Hobart  would  pe- 
i-emptorily  and  inflexibly  decline.  I  know  there  was  a  great 
struggle  in  his  mind — I  watched  the  progress  of  that  strug- 
gle With  the  deepest  concern.  And  when  he  did  finally  re- 
solve  upon  his  course  of  conduct,  he  sacrificed  to  a  sense  of 
duty  some  of  the  strongest  wishes  of  his  heart. 
.  •  So  greatly  deceived  is  Mr.  Jones  when  he  describes  Dr. 
Hobart  as  an  ambitious  young  man,  resolved  to  get  rid  of 
all  obstacles  in  his  course,  and,  lawfully  or  unlawfully,  to 
ul^ge  his  way  to  the  seats  of  power. 

S.  The  whole  account  which  Mr.  Jones  gives  of  the  call-* 

•  See  the  certificate. 


n)» 


<» 


^■'i 


(     19     ) 

ing  of  the  late  Special  Convention  is  as  remote  fi*om  fact 
as  one  thing  can  well  be  from  another. 

There  was  no  shameful  system  of  intrigue  carried  on,  for 
the  purpose  of  promoting  the  selfish  views  of  individuals,  as 
Mr.  Jones  gives  his  readers  to  understand.  The  calling  of 
the  Convention  was  a  voluntary  and  deliberate  act  of  the 
Bishop,  suggested  by  his  own  reflections,  aided  by  those  of 
some  of  the  oldest  and  most  experienced  of  the  Laity,  as 
well  as  of  the  Clergy.  And  there  can  be  but  one  opinion 
now  of  the  wisdom  of  the  measure  in  question.  We  have 
seen  the  extreme  difficulty  of  procuring  a  consecration.  In 
fact,  the  whole  business  was  literaUy  suspended  upon  a 
thread.  Bishop  Provost,  to  whom  the  Church,  on  tWs  oc- 
casion, is  deeply  indebted,  had  but  just  strength  enough  to 
go  through  the  ceremony.  And  thus  have  we  been  on  the 
very  point  of  losing  the  Episcopal  succession  in  this  country, 
and  of  being  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  crossing  the  At- 
lantic in  order  to  regain  it.  The  Bishops,  in  their  Pastoral 
Address,  set  forth  at  the  last  General  Convention,  still  ear- 
nestly recommend  "  the  propriety  of  taking  measures,  to- 
wards all  reasonable  security  for  perpetuating  of  the  Epis- 
4?opacy." — *^  For  although,"  they  observe,  "  two  of  our 
Reverend  Brethren  have  been  recently  chosen  to  the  Eipis- 
copacy;  and  rejoicing  in  this  event,  we  intend,  God  wil- 
ling, to  proceed  to  their  consecration  very  soon  after  the 
rising  of  this  Convention;  yet  we  shall  not  consider  the 
addition  of  them  to  our  body,  as  sufficient  for  the  exigency, 
or  as  affoi^ing  the  measure  of  security  which  the  case 
requires."^  . 

If  the  choice  had  been  postponed  until  the  month  of  Oc- 
tober, it  would  have  been  necessary  to  assemble  our  aged 
Bishops  a  second  time,  and  at  a  very  unpleasant  season.  In  the 
mean  while,  some  of  them  might  have  been  taken  from,  us 
by  death.  And  if  a  sufficient  number  could  not  be  assem- 
bled at  the  meeting  of  the  General  Convention,  what  pro- 
bability is  there  that  such  number  could  have  been  assem- 
bled at  an  extra  meeting  to  take  place  in  the  most  unfa- 
vourable season  of  the  year?  No ;  the  calling  of  a  Special 
Convention  of  this  State,  so  far  from  exhibiting  a  scene  of 
shameful  intrigue,  was  a  wise  and  necessary  act,  originating 
in  the  purest  motives,  and  has  rescued  the  Church  from  a 
situation  of  great  perplexity  and  danger.  What  motive  was 
there  for  delay  ?  Bishop  Mooi*e  was  extremely  anxious  fop 
the  appointment  of  an  assistant  Bishop;   and  the  Clergy 

•  Pastoral  Address,  p.  12. 


i- 


i  t 


and  Laity  were  as  well  prepared  to  make  a  judicious  choice 
as  thev  could  have  been  at  any  future  period.  When  the 
Convention  met,  the  opinion  was  strong,  and  almost  unani- 
mous,  that  it  was  indispensably  necessary  to  proceed.  The 
Bishops  who  officiated  at  the  consecration  felt  strongly  the 
importance  of  the  crisis  to  which  the  Church  was  brought ; 
and,  when  the  ceremony  was  performed,  were  relieved 
from  a  state  of  very  deep  anxiety. 

I  have  taken  notice,  I  believe,  of  all  the  eharees  which 
Mr.  Jones  prefers  against  me ;  and  I  might  now  dwell  in  a 
general  way,  upon  a  variety  of  points,  illustrative  of  his 
temper  and  spirit,  which  his  pamphlet  presents  to  view. 
But  I  wish  to  go  no  farther  than  may  be  necessary  in  self- 
defence  ;  and,  therefore,  here  close  what  I  have  to  say. 

Let  me  not,  however,  conclude  without  declaring,  as  I 
certainly  can  do,  in  the  sincerity  of  my  heart,  that  this 
vindication  of  myself  is  one  of  the  most  painful  acts  of 
»iy  life.  I  did  think,  upon  the  appearance  of  Mr.  Jones's 
pam]dilet,  that  nothing  could  ever  induce  me  to  say  a  word 
in  reply  to  it  from  the  press.  But  it  is  the  opinion  of 
many  judicious  friends,  that  an  explanation  is  due  to  the 
Church;  and  I  have  been  led  to  fear  that  a  pertinacious 
silence  might  wear  the  appearance  of  a  want  of  proper  re- 
spect for  those  before  whom  I  have  been  arraigned.  I  trust 
I  have  no  wish  to  wound  the  feelings,  or  injure  the  character 
nf  any  man.  I'he  statements  which  I  have  made  are  ne- 
cessary to  my  own  vindication.  And  if  I  had  been  disposed 
to  prolong  this  unhappy  discussion,  I  might  have  introduced 
many  things  which  I  have  wholly  omitted  ,•  and,  certainly^ 
^ouJd  have  indulged  in  a  very  difierent  style  of  remark* 


July,  1811. 


THOMAS  Y.  HOW. 


V 


% 


** 


r- 


* 


i  ' 


POSTSCRIFl\ 


As  great  pains  are  taking  to  injure  my  character,  I  think 
it  a  duty,  which  I  owe  to  the  Church  in  which  I  minister, 
to  notice,  briefly,  some  of  the  charges  that  are  put  in  cir- 
culation against  me.  ' 
It  is  said  that  I  refuse  to  be  reconciled  to  Mr.  Jonei 
And  this  is  made  the  subject  of  very  severe  crimination.    " 

In  his  pamphlet,  Mr.  Jones  expressly  acknowledges  tliat^ 
tty  conduct  towards  him,  for  nearly  two  years,  was  alto- 
gether  unexceptionable.    And  1  have  shown,  I  do  flatter 
myself,  that  the  charges  which  he  brings  against  me  since 
the  thirtieth  of  March,  1810,  are  destitute  of  foundation. 
But  Mr.  Jones,  without  requesting  any  explanation,  or  even 
saying  a  single  word  to  liie,  thought  proper  to  circulate 
against  me  verbal  complaints,  and  to  carry  about  a  written 
statement^  containing  heavy  accusations  against  me,  which 
lie  rfequested  a  nutaiber  of  persons  to  read.    And,  at  lengtli,, 
he  has  published  a  pamphlet  in  which  he  holds  me  up  in  tfie 
most  odious  point  of  light  to  the  community.    He  repre- 
sents me  as  a  persecuting  tyrant,  totally  unfit  and  unworthy 
to  minister  at  the  Christian  altar.     At  least  such  is  the  faff 
amount  of  what  he  says.    Mr.  Jones  having  thus  proceeded, 
from  verbal  and  private  complaints,  to  open  and  public  de- 
nunciation ;  it  is  now  asserted  that  he  is  willing  to  be  recon- 
ciled, and  that  I  refuse.    This  really  appears  to  me  to  be 
a  mode  of  proceeding  not  less  unmanly  than  unjust. 

But  what  is  meant  here  by  reconciliation  ? 

Does  it  simply  signify  that  no  resentment  be  indulged; 
that  there  be  no  wish  to  injure;  but,  on  the  contrary,  a  dis- 
position to  forgive  the  injuries  which,  it  may  be  supposed, 
have  been  reeeived?  If  this  be  what  is  meant,  I  am  re- 
concOed  already.  I  do  humbly  trust  that  I  have  no  wish  to 
wjure  Mr.  Jones ;  that  1  harbour  no  purposes  of  resentment 
against  him ;  and  that  I  should,  be  ready  to  render  him  any 
service,  which,  consistently  with  duty,  it  might  be  in  my 
power  to  render  him. 

Is  it  intended,  when  reconciliation  is  spoken  of,  that  Mr. 
Jones  and  I  should  meet,  and  agree  that  the  world  should 
e^msider  us  as  in  a  state  of  cordial  intercourse,  and  as  ohe- 


# 


1^^ 


93 


y 


l) 


I 
J 


(     22     ) 

risbing  those  scntiiftents  of  esteem  and  respect  for  each 
other,  tvhieh  are  so  becoming  our  relative  situation  as  col- 
leagues in  the  ministry  of  the  same  Church  ?  But  how  can 
Mr.  Jones,  after  describing  me  as  so  very  unworthy,  con- 
sent that  the  world  should  regard  him  as  having  confidence 
in  me,  and  as  cherishing  sentiments  of  esteem  for  my  cha- 
racter !  This  is  a  part  of  the  business  which  I  confess  I 
know  not  how  to  understand.  I  will  use  no  disguise— I  will 
frankly  express  my  ideas  and  feelings.  I  do  really  think 
thsd  Mr.  Jones  has  acted  most  unworthily;  that  he  has 
treated  me  with  great  injustice  and  cruelty ;  and  that  he  has 
discovered  tempers  and  principles  which  are  very  far  from 
entitling  him  to  my  esteem.  So  far,  too,  from  expressing 
any  sorrow  for  what  he  has  done,  Mr.  Jones  openly  declares 
that  he  does  not  regret,  in  the  smallest  degree,  the  publica- 
tion of  his  pamphlet ;  that  he  is  rapidly  gaining  ground ; 
and  that  he  shall  soon  obtain  a  complete  victory  over  his  op- 
ponents. Nay,  he  repeats  his  injurious  charge,  relative  to 
the  late  election  of  a  Bishop  for  this  diocese,  in  stronger 
terms  than  ever. 

Am  I  asked  to  forgive  all  this^  and  to  indulge  no  purposes 
of  resentment  towards  Mr.  Jones  ?  1  answer  again — I  do 
forgive  it— I  harbour  no  wish  to  injure  Mr.  Jones.  But 
'when  I  am  called  upon  to  esteem  him,  to  place  confidence 
in  him,  and  to  adopt  a  system  of  conduct  which  may  assure 
the  world  that  such  is  the  state  of  things — I  answer— I  can 
esteem  those  only  whom  I  believe  to  be  worthy ;  and  I  can- 
not hold  eoinlia]  intercourse  with  a  man  who  prefers  against 
me  the  most  unfounded  arid  injurious  charges,  and  refuses 
all  reparation.  Indeed,  it  is  dangerous  to  have  any  commu- 
nication with  one  who  watches  every  word  you  utter,  enters 
it  in  his  journal,  and  finally  publishes  that  journal  to  the 
world,  embellished  by  his  own  comments,  and  sharpened  by 
his  own  uncharitable  interpretations.  With  a  person  of  this 
description,  it  can  never  be  safe  to  have  intercourse. 

What  should  we  think  of  a  man  who,  after  publishing  his 
neighbour  to  the  world,  as  totally  unworthy  of  respect  or 
confidence,  should  go  about  and  say  that  he  wished  to  be 
upon  terms  of  respect,  esteem,  and  confidence  witli  that 
neighbour,  and  that  he  declined !  Just  such  is  the  conduct 
of  Mr.  Jones.  He  denounces  me  to  the  public — ^And  then, 
because  I  decline  adopting  a  course  of  behaviour  which  may 
give  the  world  to  understand  that  I  respect  and  esteem  him, 
be  represents  me  as  refusing  to  be  reconciled  to  him,  and  en- 
deavours to  make  it  out  that  I  am  destitute  of  all  pretensions 
to  the  Christian  temper.     No.    If  a  reconciliation  take 


!^' 


r 


»"■> 


(     23     ) 

place,  it  must  be  bottomed  upon  solid*  principles,  and  must 
be  so  conducted  as  to  satisfy  reasonable  men  that  it  is  sincere. 
Any  reconciliation,  which  shall  be  preceded  by  no  act""  of 
justice  toward  those  whom  Mr.  Jones  has  injured,  will  be 
regarded  as  a  mere  scene  of  hypocrisy,  and  will  destroy,  and 
justly  destroy  all  public  respect  for  their  characters. 

Beside,  how  can  I  possibly  consent  to  any  act  which  may 
imply  that  I  esteem  and  respect  Mr.  Jones,  until  he  convin- 
ces me  that  he  is  entitled  to  my  esteem  and  respect ! 

Again,  it  is  said  that  I  wish  to  get  Mr,  Jones  dismissed, 
in  order  that  the  way  may  be  cleared  for  my  election  to  the. 
Rectorship  of  Trinity  Church. 

Thank  God,  I  feel  perfectly  innocent  of  this.  I  have 
never  been  conscious,  in  this  business,  as  far  as  I  know  my 
own  heart,  of  the  operation  of  such  a  base  and  mercenary 
principle.  Indeed,  until  the  thing  was  mentioned  to  me, 
as  among  the  charges  in  circulation,  I  do  not  know  thajt  it 
had  even  so  much  as  passed  through  my  mind. 

It  will  be  recollected  that  Dr.  Hobart  is  a  much  older  As- 
sistant Minister  of  Ti^inity^  Church  than  I  am,  and  that, 
whatever  arrangements  may  at  present  be  made,  his  claim 
to  the  Rectorship  is  to  be  considered  as  not  in  the  slightest 
degree  impaired.  Admitting  me  then  to  be  capable  of  act- 
ing from  the  motive  which  is  imputed  to  me,  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  object  in  question  is  one  which  I  can  have  no  pros- 
pect of  accomplishing. 

Among  other  things  which  are  laid  to  my  charge,  it  is 
said  that  I  have  expressed  the  opinion  that  there  ought  to  be 
but  one  sermon  delivered  on  Sunday.  This  would  appear  to 
have  very  little  connection  with  the  case  of  Mr.  Jones.  It 
may  be  proper,  nevertheless,  to  take  some  notice  of  it. 
And  I  shall  speak  with  that  frankness  wljieh  is  always  ho- 
nourable, however  it  may  occasionally  lay  us  open  to  inju- 
rious suspicions. 

The  charge  is  not  true.  I  have  expressed  the  opinion 
that  an  undue  stress  is  laid  upon  preaching,  while  too  little 
yalue  is  attached  to  the  prayers,  which  alone,  strictly  speak- 
ing, constitute  the  public  worship.  I  have  said  that  if  peo- 
ple would  be  satisfied  with  a  sermon  in  the  morning,  go  to 
Church  in  the  afternoon  simply  to  worship  God,  and  employ 
the  evening  in  self-examination,  prayer,  and  the  instruc- 
tion of  their  families,  the  interests  of  vital  piety  would  be 
much  more  effectually  promoted.  Of  the  soundness  of  this 
opinion  I  am  well  satisfied.  In  proportion  as  men  get  into 
the  habit  of  prayer,  will  they  progress  in  the  divine  life. 
And  one  of  the  evil  consequences  of  never  going  to  Church, 


i- 


I 


• 


^1 


without  the  expectation  of  bearing^a  sermon,  is  that  it  leads 
to  the  most  erroneous  ideas  of  the  ohjeet  of  public  Tvorsh^# 
But  I  have  never  expressed  the  opinion  that  it  wouM  be  pro- 
per to  attempt  to  introduce  the  system  in  question  into  the 
Church  in  New-York.  Indeed,  I  have  expressed  a  directly 
contrary  opinion;  having  repeatedly  declared  that,  in  the 
existing  state  of  things,  I  consider  the  evening  lecture  as 
important,  and  by  no  means  to  be  dispensed  with.  We  must 
accommodate  ourselves  to  circumstances.  It  is  often  a  duty 
to  conform  to  the  ideas  and  feelings  which  prevail,  when  no 
principle  is  absolutely  violated  in  so  doing. 

Admit  that  the  opimon,  which  I  have  been  expressing, 
is  an  erroneous  one.  Still  it  is  an  honest  opinion.  And  I 
do  hope  it  may  be  accounted  for  without  supposing*  it  to  b« 
the  result  of  an  absolute  want  of  zeal  for  the  reUgious  cause. 

It  may  not  be  improper  to  add,  that  for  some  time  after  I 
settled  in  New-Yorl^,  I  preached  the  third  time  on  Sunday, 
not  only  in  Trinity  Church,  but  frequently  also  in  Christ 
Church.  And  1  continued  to  do  this  until  my  health  was 
injured. 

I  humbly  trust  that  I  have  not  merited  the  sevew  remarks, 
which,  in  reference  to  this  subject,  have  been  made  against 
me. 

To  conclude,  my  object,  in  writing,  is  not  to  impeach  any 
man's  character,  but  simply  to  defend  myself.  I  submki 
what  I  have  said  to  the  candid  eonsideratiou  of  the  members 
of  the  Chureh« 

THOMAS  Y.  HOW. 


*  It  ought  to  be  recollected  that  it  uas  a  prevailing  practice  in  the  Chureh  of 
Engfatnd,  to  have  hut  one  sermon  on  Sunday;  the  people  assembling  in  the  after- 
iK)on  simply  to  worshipTJod.  This,  if  1  am  coarcetly  informed,  Tras,  for  a  long 
time,  the  almost  universal  rule. 


f^. 


I   > 
'1  I 


.V 


^ 


f 


'* ' "'■   ■»'■'  '-iTiS juriaaiy 

COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


0026057000 


Ti 


\ 


f 


re 


^flhji 


L 


BRiniE  DO  NOT 
PHOTOCOPY 


'- ','  ►t  J-'^  ■  JSi"j|-^^ 


","     -•"' jf'"' i*' i  V '  >: 
r       a»..'  ^  rj: '>i' ;'» -^i 


ri 


^^  >    ,-    >iS 


'  .      .* 


'■.-^.-^  ■   .■ 


i-^ 


ii^»-  .  . 


vr    -^' 

':  '  JS 

^0 

vr   v.  , 


f     r^ 


:.'■«-.•.■ 


.»-    <    •>^..;^' 


^v^-"7v- 


>^A 


.-^^i' 


''  ^> 


^4. 


*  V  '1- 


".>w  \^-^ 


;-lf.-;-^>'- 


.EV    V 


f^rK 


.»*''«i 


.S-i. 


I        » 


,>^^ 


i      -*  • 


-....-.•f-  ^ 


^r 


V  ><• 


